However much you protest the idea, you *are* using a "God of the Gaps" argument. You go from the position of "something must have started the universe" to the position of "that something was God" without any explanation of how you got there; only that it "makes sense" to you.
If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you'd say that we currently don't know what started the universe, but that you believe it was a God (for your religious reasons). It still isn't a very good argument; but it's better than "God of the Gaps".
The point is, we don't know; we may never know. Putting God as an explanation might feel good for the religious, but it is a big assumption.
If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you'd say that we currently don't know what started the universe, but that you believe it was a God (for your religious reasons). It still isn't a very good argument; but it's better than "God of the Gaps".
Quote:Currently, anything that has a cause has had a beginning . Only something without a cause, the uncaused cause, could be the causer of the universe we live in.This assumes the universe has a cause. There is no evidence it did. The Big Bang is the expansion of space and time; not the creation of the universe as a lot of people seem to think. As Darwinian said, our current understanding of reality falls apart once we reach the Big Bang. There are theories that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, hence the universe would have existed for all time; there are theories that quantum fluctuations were the cause.
The point is, we don't know; we may never know. Putting God as an explanation might feel good for the religious, but it is a big assumption.
