Refuting The Atheistic "God Of The Gaps" Argument

          Atheists portray belief in the existence of God as merely being an explanation for things that science has not yet answered. A common objection to theism is that it has been assumed without proof the necessity of God's existence in all areas that science itself has not yet been able to account for. On the contrary, Christians are not appealing to God simply to fill in missing or incomplete scientific data. Such arguments are not based on silence. They are not made on the basis of a lack of knowledge.

           When arguments for the existence of God are made, we are making inferences from the best observations gathered by science and from the principles of elementary logic to substantiate our beliefs. All of our collected evidences point to the existence of an external, greater reality. These logical proofs for the existence of God point beyond the scope of the natural world. If the premises of such arguments are true, then their conclusions automatically follow. It does not matter how people feel or react to the validity of presented deductive arguments.

           The validity of each logical premise in these arguments is based on the validity of each scientific or philosophical point used in making them. For instance, the universe does have a fine-tuning. The universe has a first cause. These are scientific facts which must be dealt with. Theistic arguments do not simply assume the existence of God as a means of providing an explanation, but are logical deductions that are unpacked to get an intended point across.

           

          A true scientist must be open to the possibility of many things, for they are supposed to dedicate their lives to seeking answers. Scientists are supposed to be about evidence. Those who reject the existence of God are very biased indeed. Science is about the study of the natural world, not searching for naturalistic explanations which rule out the supernatural. The fact that science has discovered answers to a number of complicated questions does not mean that it alone is sufficient to unravel every difficult question of life.