God of the Gaps vs The Gaps Are God
Posted: Thu May 28, 2026 2:28 am
"God of the gaps," as used in secular arguments, tends to make us think of the idea of "God" as a placeholder for anything we do not "yet" understand about the way the world works. It's a "cop out" and a sign of "ignorance" to be overcome, a sign that we do not yet know the true rational, "natural" explanation of something, and therefore God is a temporary placeholder.
But there are also things in this world that seem to defy rational, natural explanations and expectations, as far as what we are able to determine seems like 'ought' to be "natural". This would be something I would call "the gaps are God", meaning that God is not a cop out but an explanation for what seems to be the impossible or highly improbable.
So which of these two phrases might best describe the human concept of "God"? Is God a "God of the gaps," a temporary placeholder for a cause or process we don't yet know or understand, but can, in theory, learn or discover? Or is God the gaps themselves, that which overcomes the impossible or highly improbable to explain how seemingly impossible or improbable things came into being against logic or the odds?
But there are also things in this world that seem to defy rational, natural explanations and expectations, as far as what we are able to determine seems like 'ought' to be "natural". This would be something I would call "the gaps are God", meaning that God is not a cop out but an explanation for what seems to be the impossible or highly improbable.
So which of these two phrases might best describe the human concept of "God"? Is God a "God of the gaps," a temporary placeholder for a cause or process we don't yet know or understand, but can, in theory, learn or discover? Or is God the gaps themselves, that which overcomes the impossible or highly improbable to explain how seemingly impossible or improbable things came into being against logic or the odds?