Changes

"God of the gaps" is a term used by atheists and scientists to disparage the belief that science cannot explain everything. [[Atheism|Atheists ]] argue that saying "God did it" as a response to every mystery is an ineffective argument. It should be noted that [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]] has effectively established that science really can't explain everything; therefore, accusing believers of having a God of gaps is not in accordance with scientific principle. == Christian responses to God of the gaps argument == *[https://creation.com/whose-god-the-theological-response-to-the-god-of-the-gaps Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps] by Lael Weinberger*[https://www.icr.org/article/gaps-the-god-gaps/ The Gaps in 'The God of the Gaps'] by Brian Thomas, M.S. == Intelligent design response to the God of the gaps argument == [[Intelligent design]] (ID) is the empirically testable<ref>"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes" source: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]</ref> theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.<ref>An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]</ref> As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html</ref> === ID response to the God of the gaps argument === *[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1159 Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument?] - Idea Center

''See also:'' [[Atheism and evidence]] and [[Atheism and Miracles|Atheism and miracles]]

Question 2: Why would that dramatic, [[Miracle|miraculous]], sensational event count as evidence for God? At this point, the atheist will likely try to change the topic. But persist with the question. What you will find is that the reason why the atheist would count such an event as evidence for God is because it could not possibly be explained by natural causes and science. In other words, because it was a Gap. Modern day atheism is built on God of the Gaps logic.