The existence of God
Science’s inability to explain all things right now is a lame proof to the existence of God. God should not be used as an excuse for humanity’s ignorance. Similarly, narrowing the gaps in our scientific knowledge does not prove or disprove anything on the existence of God. The term “god of the gaps” refers to the belief that anything that can’t be explained by science must have been caused by God. Basically, this means that scientific ignorance is proof of the existence of God. The “god of the gaps” argument follows the below logic:
• There is a gap in scientific knowledge. • This gap can be best explained by God. The term “god of the gaps” has been used by evangelicals centuries before. Those were the days before Newton, Galileo and Einstein. People are getting curious and looking for answers to even the simplest of natural events, such as day & night, why the sun always rises in the east, etc. Mankind was impressed by these “miracles”. And because there was still no scientific information at that time, evangelical lectures would point to these gaps as works of God.
Proponents of the creationist theory argued that complex molecules such as amino acids, believed to be the basis of life, could not have appeared on earth by process of natural selection. Some divine intervention is needed to miraculously create these in our planet. However, astronomers found that these complex molecules are present in huge amounts in the universe. Now, this scientific progress just debunks one basis of the creationist theory. Centuries ago, God is believed to have created the stars, the sun, the insects, the birds, and the rest of the whole of the universe.
With curiosity and intelligence, more and more scientists have figured out a way to explain several phenomenons which used to be attributed to God. It is unfair to the believers in God to use this concept on the “gods of the gaps” to prove God’s existence. If so, then the God who used to be all powerful is diminishing in power and performing less and less miracles. Apparently, Dawkins is trying to say that science has created God so to explain things it still could not provide a sound explanation to. He used the “god of the gaps” argument to prove that God does not exist.
This is obviously a fallacious argument. We could not blame to the existence or nonexistence of God the gaps of our knowledge. This kind of philosophy says that God is becoming less and less significant as science further advances. Centuries ago, a lot of things were believed to be acts of God because there were still no scientific explanations for them. With each passing year, more and more scientific discoveries are made. As our scientific knowledge expands, the gaps, used to be attributed to God, becomes less and less. The science of evolution, for example, has eliminated many of these gaps.
Using the “god of the gaps” argument does not help theists prove the existence of God. This argument just shows that as knowledge in science becomes wider, God’s dominion becomes narrower. The “god of the gaps” shows that science and God could not coexist. It is not right to use the concept of God for the failure of science to explain things. Obviously, science still has a lot of explaining to do. However, with each new discovery, science not only unfolded some secrets but also illustrated what an intelligent the universe is. A good example for this is how to better understand an irreducible complex system.
An irreducibly complex system such as the bacterial flagellum is obviously one gap of our knowledge in biology. Scientists may be able to suggest of reasons to account for the amazing behaviour of this bacteria regarding its complex biological rotary engine, however these are not enough to account for all possibilities. Contrary to the concept of the “god of the gaps” science has proven that there is nothing random in this universe, even if we look deeper into irreducibly complex systems. Every new scientific information shows an intelligent designer behind each phenomenon.
In reality however, as science improves, more evidences are surfacing that the universe may indeed have been designed by an intelligent designer. As humans, we still have a long way to go to understand the interstellar activities and the physical laws that govern them. However, astronomers are inclined to believe that a planet like the earth has a high rate of improbability for random creation. Further researches show that this planet and universe have been specially designed. Contrary to the “god of the gaps”, intelligent design appeals to intelligence of the designer to explain these gaps. The universe is inarguably complex, but orderly.
This kind of setup can only be caused by intelligence. In his book, Dawkins argues that anything that shows a design requires a designer that is superior to itself. Thus, he continues, it should follow that since God should also have a designer superior to Himself. Since an infinite regression is impossible, no God can exist. However, if we apply this Dawkins’ logic regarding the existence of the universe, we’ll have to accept that there is no universe because this universe will require a multiverse which is superior to itself. However, merely by observation, a universe exists. There must be something wrong with Dawkins’ line of argument.
His premise that a design requires a superior designer than itself must be false. The universe’s Creator is a necessary entity, or else this universe would not have existed. If the “god of the gaps” argument is valid for the nonexistence of God, then these gaps should be decreasing in number instead of increasing as science progresses. There is a gap, admittedly. However, the progress of science to answer these gaps should not be used as a pointer of whether or not God truly exists. The belief that workings of God can be seen in the things science has left unexplained makes an amusing argument.Sample Essay of EduBirdie.com