The biggest problem with using gaps in our understanding of science to prove the existence of God (God of the gaps) is that those gaps keep getting smaller and the God of the gaps will disappear.
It is for this reason that I think that believers do better by basing a belief in God as a matter of faith. Science will continue to use Occam’s razor. That is, since the universe can be explained without a God, so why posit one? If you have faith in a God, no one can really argue with you. In other words, a God of faith is unfalsifiable and therefore not testable by science.
An interventionist God is still a difficulty. If the supernatural can affect the natural, then the supernatural becomes observable through its effects on the natural and can be measured. But as we’ve established, science has been able to explain everything so far without the need for a God and an interventionist God would be a God of the gaps.
It is for this reason, I think that only faith in an impersonal God would work. Unless, of course, I am overlooking something. Are a personal God and an interventionist God a perfect overlap? Should I not use the terms interchangeably?
©2017 Stephen L. Martin
Photo: Anti-evolution League at the Scopes trial