Proofing God Exists: The God of The Gaps Argument

Hello boys and girls, welcome to another edition of the Proofing God Exists series where we visited some of the theists’ argument in explaining how God exists or necessary in explaining the creation of life and bash it down the drain for its logical fallacy, lol.

In this edition, we visited the God of The Gaps argument that probably is the argument that is being the most thrown out into much of the discussion between atheist and theist.

So, let’s start with what is the God of The Gaps argument? The God of The Gaps argument is a statement made from theist to justify that God do things for what we can’t explain (in this case we can’t explain it using scientific explanation).

A typical God of the Gaps argument may come as such of the following:

Theist: Tides comes in, tides come out. It always happens. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that.

Atheist: Actually tides occur because of the gravitational force acting against the earth by the moon.

Theist: Then how did the moon created to allow such event to happen?

Atheist: The Moon formed from debris that was the result of a huge collision.

Theist: Where did this debris come from?

(discussion elongated for a while until…)

Theist: How did the universe come into existence?

Atheist: It is believed that the big bang is the cause of such event.

Theist: How did the big bang occurs?

Atheist: We have yet to conclude such question…

Theist: Then God must have done it.

The problem of such blatantly ignorant argument is that you put the gaps that is yet to be investigated and quickly concluded that God must have to be the agent that does all that without even think how God came into existence in the first place. I admit that science is still in progress of finding answer to fill in the gaps of unknown, but filling in the gaps with God is just a straight forward ignorance.

If you are content with such argument, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. This is not good because it doesn’t promote genuine truth which obtain from a lot of questioning and statement proving. In the end, I will leave you with a clip from Neil Degrasse Tyson to enjoy:


15 responses to “Proofing God Exists: The God of The Gaps Argument

  1. I find this true. I may believe in the concept of god, but just because something has yet to reach a conclusion does not mean the answer is god. Credit for something often results in massive amounts of tension when I’m eating dinner with may family, example, we’re having a meal, while my family is thanking god for the meal, I’m just like “Hey, while we’re at it, lets also thank the farmers who raised the cows and harvested the vegetables.” They will get angry at me…just because I want to give credit where credit is due, I am upset that they raised me Catholic, not because of the christian tendencies, but because they expect “faith” from me. Wow, I really drifted off-topic there.

  2. The big problem with this whole point is that, on both sides, something has to have started from nothing, or something has to have always existed. I see it as null argument on both sides honestly, because virtually any point either side can make works against it as well.

    “Where did God come from?”

    “Where did the universe come from?”

    “Where did the big bang come from?”

    Like you wrote, it’s just a series of questions

    God could not have just suddenly come into existence, but then again, the material universe could not have either. Then comes the argument that the big bang created it, but at that point you have nothing+nothing=big bang, which is really no different than nothing+nothing=god(s).

    No matter how you look at it, you end up with unanswerable questions for the simple reason that no one was there to witness it, and there is no way to know what existed before the universe. Honestly, both perspectives sound straight up insane: First there was nothing, then nothing exploded violently, and everything was made. Or, first there was nothing, then God made himself and the universe.

    This is why when the point is argued all that happens is finger pointing and name calling. For instance, in this piece the writer calls theists ignorant, while openly admitting “We have yet to conclude such question…” Calling people out as ignorant when they don’t believe in an incomplete or unproven theory is a little harsh. Not trying to pick on the writer, but simply making an observation.


    Catholicism is more about religiosity and legalism than anything else. They get angry because you break their habit or tradition, which they no doubt taught you to do. They pray like that because they were taught to do it, not because they believe they should do it. Honestly though, the vast majority of religion is all about religiosity and legalism rather than a faith in a deity.

    • “Calling people out as ignorant when they don’t believe in an incomplete or unproven theory is a little harsh”.
      I don’t think that’s the reason why Lucy did that. She addresses people as being ignorant by concluding there has to be God without thinking of proving how he came into existence in the first place. She addresses such people to be ignorant because they put God in the gaps that science has yet to answer.
      This won’t be a problem if God can be proven, but clearly they do not make an effort to do so.

  3. Fair enough. If the argument is simply “you don’t have 100% proof so you’re wrong,” then yes, I would agree with the ignorant statement.


    • In the past, billion people believed Zeus was real. Billion people believed Earth was the center of the universe. Billion people believed Earth was held in the back of a giant turtle. Where are they now?

  5. @KEVIN SMITH Whoa dude, slow down. What about the people who don’t believe in god? What about the many people that believe in Brahman? What about the many people who believe in a different variation of god?

    @Kaza and KEVIN Ok, I knew this would come in handy some day. During my junior year of HS (when I really started questioning catholicism and religion), I did a personal study where I tried to find out if there was a connection between the human mind and the existence of deities. I started simply with the existence of objects, asking questions like “Here is this ball, can I see it? Yes, Can I touch it? Yes. Can I taste it? Yes. etc etc. So if I didn’t have the ability to sense the ball, could it really be there? If I was not 100% confident that the ball was there, is it there?” Then I started to work this into the existence of deities, granted it is pretty difficult and crazy to go from a ball to a god in a study. I worked until I came to a hypothesis where it could be connected by using 100% of our brain power, which might possibly be full control over our mind and therefore our senses and how they interact with the world around them. Eventually I drew the hypothesis (I am far from calling it a theory) that the existence of deities maybe controlled by belief and faith, we see this all the time and never realize it, especially in modern myth culture with beings such as the boogey-man or Santa Claus. I’m just throwing this study out there, use it if you may. However, this study is far from reaching a conclusion and I am far from continuing with it because I actually believe what both of you are probably thinking…this is crazy! So KEVIN, if this were indeed the case, it wouldn’t matter how many people believe in god, it would matter how strong the faith was of at least one of those billion.

  6. When you find out when God exsisted let me know, who cares when he did, not that he did mind you. God is beond time, as it says in the bible, God has no begining and no end he was always there. I dont know why humans have this huge urge to want to know where things came from. I think even if the truth was given to you (those who dont beleive in God) you still wouldn’t believe it so really your just going around in circles trying to make some sort of logic to it, but its something humans will never understand not even christains understand all of it.

  7. Once you come to a true understanding of God himself and who he is, you’ll know it’s not blind faith in the slightest.

  8. i am a Muslim and i will say Science is not eliminating GOD but it is eliminating models of GOD i.e gods.i believe this world is a test and i have to pass in it though i may make some mistake no one is perfect but i know Allah will forgive me he is the most merciful.
    God sent his apostles in every periods whenever humanity was on wrong path.I believe in Jesus and Moses Muhammad and Abraham and every prophet.Its a part of my faith.
    Saying who created God is just like saying That a man goes to hospital and have a baby,Time and Space do not implies to God.however Time and Space
    depend on Allah.

    Many religions at some point believe, directly or indirectly, in the philosophy of anthropomorphism i.e. God becoming a human. Their contention is that Almighty God is so pure and holy that He is unaware of the hardships, shortcomings and feelings of human beings. In order to set the rules for human beings, He came down to earth as a human. This deceptive logic has fooled countless millions through the ages. Let us now analyze this argument and see if it stands to reason.
    Suppose I manufacture a video cassette recorder (VCR). Do I have to become a VCR to know what is good or what is bad for the VCR? What do I do? I write an instruction manual: “In order to watch a video cassette, insert the cassette and press the play button. In order to stop, press the stop button. If you want to fast forward press the FF button. Do not drop it from a height or it will get damaged. Do not immerse it in water or it will get spoilt”. I write an instruction manual that lists the various do’s and don’ts for the machine.
    Holy Qur’an is the instruction manual for the human being:

    Similarly, our Lord and Creator Allah (swt) need not take human form to know what is good or bad for the human being. He chooses to reveal the instruction manual. The last and final instruction manual of the human beings is the Glorious Qur’an. The ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ for the human beings are mentioned in the Qur’an.
    If you allow me to compare human beings with machines, I would say humans are more complicated than the most complex machines in the world. Even the most advanced computers, which are extremely complex, are pale in comparison to the myriad physical, psychological, genetic and social factors that affect individual and collective human life.
    The more advanced the machine, greater is the need for its instruction manual. By the same logic, don’t human beings require an instruction manual by which to govern their own lives?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s