Anyone who’s trying to use God to explain the things that science can’t explain in the 21st century, is a fool because who knows what science is going to explain in the 23rd century? (source) However, I think this is circular reasoning because it assumes that there is a natural explanation forthcoming i.e.promissory naturalism (we do not have a natural explanation yet but one day we will).
(it happens in other places as well, but unless you study the original languages you will never know it).This is one of the reasons why KJVonlyism (or dependence on any one translation) is so horribly vacuous for doing theology.1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause; 2) The universe began to exist; 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause; I like to add because that initial cause started nature it must transcend nature hence it is supernatural.The skeptic replies along these lines, “That is a God of the gaps argument, simply because we don’t have a natural explanation yet, doesn’t mean we will never discover one, you are inserting God into the gaps of scientific knowledge.” Jesuit astronomer Guy Consolmagno serves as a prime example of such a skeptic with his comment, Consolmagno: Well, when Hawking says we don’t need God to start the universe, he’s right.
However, asserting that it is a “God of the gaps” argument, is to assume there is an undiscovered naturalistic cause but, in fact, that is the very thing in question.
It’s popular to say “I hate to say ‘I told you so’ but…” However, I am not going to offer false humility because, of course, I do like to say “I told you so!