FIRST
If you assume there is a God.
If you see there are mysteries in nature.
If you assume that God explains them.
That is dishonest and lazy. You won't stop doing it when science explains what used to be explained by a God of the gap.
God, if he is good, deserves to be treated respectfully - not as a place-filler.
Science itself deserves better than people who are intellectually lazy. That issue is why science is hindered even today.
And besides, if you needed that, an impersonal intelligence would do. God would be an overreach - a sign that you are about your own bias not the truth.
THE ARGUMENT
Stephen Hawking suggested that people must choose between God and science because God is often invoked only to fill gaps in scientific knowledge. The more we understand the universe through science, the less room there is for a God of the gaps. Claiming God exists in gaps of knowledge is like looking into the dark and assuming that someone must be there simply because we cannot see.
The concept of a God of the gaps is based on a flawed approach: "We cannot explain this, so let us invent something to explain it." This reasoning discourages further investigation and promotes intellectual complacency. It can also mislead people: an incorrect explanation may feel comforting, but it does not advance understanding.
Some fundamentalists claim to rely on rational or scientific thinking, yet often they are creating explanations that appeal to the desire for easy answers rather than engaging in rigorous inquiry. This reliance on simplified explanations exploits the human tendency to avoid the effort of independent thought.
Moreover, the human mind can protect itself from truths it fears. For example, individuals may deceive themselves about their own moral failings to avoid facing uncomfortable realities. Similarly, the more a person relies on cognitive or emotional “crutches,” such as attributing unknown phenomena to God without evidence, the more their thinking becomes detached from reality.
The God of the gaps concept is philosophically problematic. Even if a gap requires some cause, it does not imply that the cause is a personal, conscious being. Such a cause might be an impersonal force or an infinite principle rather than the God of classical theism. In this sense, terms like “Intelligent Designer of the Gaps” may be more accurate than “God of the Gaps.”
God could exist as a life-force that behaves intelligently without being conscious. There is no inherent necessity for consciousness in a being that initiates or sustains existence. Arguing that only a conscious God could create conscious beings is problematic because consciousness itself is not fully understood. If consciousness cannot arise from unconsciousness, then creating something from nothing appears equally, if not more, paradoxical.
Some Christians argue that God does not transform nothing into something but merely causes existence to appear. Yet this is still a form of creation ex nihilo—a transition from non-existence to existence—which remains a profound mystery. According to classical doctrine, God does not derive consciousness from himself but merely commands it to exist. Consciousness, therefore, does not require God to be conscious, much as a computer can operate on a plant without itself being alive.
A creator who generates reality from himself provides more accessible insight into his nature than a creator who is entirely separate from creation. If creation emerges from the creator’s own “substance,” we can potentially learn more about the creator’s properties.
The absolute distinction between creator and creation allows for many possibilities: the creator might be impersonal, morally good or indifferent, or fundamentally different from human understanding. Perfection does not imply that God must embody all possible traits; God can be perfectly good or perfectly effective in ways that do not require consciousness or personal attributes. For example, a perfect creator need not make human lives perfect, just as a perfect painting need not be edible.
Hawking may use the term God in the popular sense—as a creator rather than a personal deity. From this perspective, the more we understand the universe through science, the less necessity there is for a creator in unexplained gaps.
When confronted with phenomena in nature, it is reasonable to first assume natural causes. This approach is consistent with how we reason about daily life: we do not assume divine intervention in ordinary events without evidence. To presume God is responsible for gaps in knowledge is already a biased assumption.
The God of the gaps argument presumes God exists and interprets unknowns as evidence of that existence. This reasoning is not genuine inquiry. Even if a higher intelligence filled a gap, there would be no justification for assuming it corresponds to a Christian-type God.