The god of the gaps is used to fill the last gap in front of a fundamental explanation of the physical world.

Fundamental physical constants, like the masses of the elementary particle families (or their coupling strengths to the Higgs field) and the coupling constants of the fundamental interactions, cannot be explained by the standard model. String theory states that coupling constants and masses are randomly distributed over a huge landscape of possible solutions to the overarching theory.

There are different theories to explain the physical constants. This renders a god of the gaps, who sets the constants in order to make life possible, superfluous.

How are the theories themselves explained? If there is no gap left, it seems that there is logically nothing else to conclude that God created the universe, even when it's eternal.

  • Add several tags.
    – J D
    Commented Feb 11, 2022 at 20:17
  • 1
    Sure we can. Are you familiar with Agrippa's trilemma? There is always a deeperer explanation after a deeper explanation because explanations always must take something for granted. Or there'd be nothing to explain with. And that will always be a (perceived) gap.
    – Conifold
    Commented Feb 11, 2022 at 21:04
  • 1
    Your question is essentially same as a recent post about the existence of unexplainable brute physical facts vs (weak) PSR insisting further explanation leading up to the (weak) necessary metaphysical concept of God... Commented Feb 11, 2022 at 21:31
  • 1
    There's a common subtle issue here for your conclusion which is also mentioned in my linked post somewhere since your conclusion is implicitly based on the premise of PSR or its weak version, but the stake of debate here is just PSR vs not-PSR (accept brute facts without any further explanation as you always hear people say "it is what it is..."), so you may beg the question. Of course there's nothing illogical if you just favor/argue for the positions similar to those of PSR or Pruss's WPSR, WWPSR... Commented Feb 11, 2022 at 22:25
  • 1
    As you seem committed to relationism which claims existence is always relative to something else, so if all original brute facts are beautiful/good, then per relationsim there must simultaneously be bad/ugly facts in order to make sense of the beautiful facts. Thus the nature of brute facts on a whole if any at all must be naught of either good or bad under relationalism... Commented Feb 11, 2022 at 23:51


You must log in to answer this question.