The 'god of the gaps' argument refers to any question for which a definitive answer is not known, that is therefore attributed to god(s). The example of lightning is pretty clear in this regard. Until we learned how lightning is formed and why it occurs, a person could state that lightning was a supernatural event of some sort. If doubt was expressed regarding his claim, he could ask if they had any better guesses. Lacking clear knowledge of the nature and cause of lightning, one could fill that "gap" by claiming it was a sign from god. Once we learned enough about it to dismiss god as a cause, it is no longer a gap in our knowledge. God as a potential cause is no longer claimed, lest the claimant be thought mad or an idiot.
It continues to be applied to any event or area where sufficient knowledge is lacking, such as the formation of life or the origins of the universe. A lack of knowledge allows for people to make claims regarding those events or areas without having to provide evidence, because those who doubt the claims cannot produce a sufficient explanation of their own. It continues to be unconvincing as an argument, in part because it's a poor argument to make, and in greater part because every time we answer questions about our world or universe, we don't find gods or spirits or the supernatural anywhere in there. "I don't know" is not reason enough to claim that your hypothesis is valid. "I don't know, and history shows that your claims never end up being the explanation" makes god claims inexcusable anymore.
You ask "how is the theist supposed to prove that god exists?" Perhaps a more relevant question is "why isn't god taking care of that particular detail?" How might god reveal himself so that no one could doubt it was him? Erm... wouldn't an all-knowing god be able to figure it out? It can't be that difficult for a fellow who spun a whole universe off of his fingertips. Yet the best he seems capable of is the occasional cameo (these being so unimpressive that he finally stopped doing them a couple thousand years ago) and these days he's limited himself to bumps in the night and burn marks on toast. It's just the sort of thing one might expect when you combine a non-existent deity with a comically superstitious species which is still scared by its own collective shadow far too often.
It continues to be applied to any event or area where sufficient knowledge is lacking, such as the formation of life or the origins of the universe. A lack of knowledge allows for people to make claims regarding those events or areas without having to provide evidence, because those who doubt the claims cannot produce a sufficient explanation of their own. It continues to be unconvincing as an argument, in part because it's a poor argument to make, and in greater part because every time we answer questions about our world or universe, we don't find gods or spirits or the supernatural anywhere in there. "I don't know" is not reason enough to claim that your hypothesis is valid. "I don't know, and history shows that your claims never end up being the explanation" makes god claims inexcusable anymore.
You ask "how is the theist supposed to prove that god exists?" Perhaps a more relevant question is "why isn't god taking care of that particular detail?" How might god reveal himself so that no one could doubt it was him? Erm... wouldn't an all-knowing god be able to figure it out? It can't be that difficult for a fellow who spun a whole universe off of his fingertips. Yet the best he seems capable of is the occasional cameo (these being so unimpressive that he finally stopped doing them a couple thousand years ago) and these days he's limited himself to bumps in the night and burn marks on toast. It's just the sort of thing one might expect when you combine a non-existent deity with a comically superstitious species which is still scared by its own collective shadow far too often.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
