God will always live in the gaps of science for some because science will always have more questions to answer than answers to the questions. As with evolution, our narrations of what happened are ripe with gaps, and people often attribute unrelated things to the proof of evolution like saying we share 98% of DNA with chimpanzees and a large portion with starfish as well, so we as humans must linked by a common ancestors and have evolved from sea creatures. There isn’t documented proof we came from apes or for that matter the ocean but it is widely accepted none the less. This information comes from building on what we know to bridge the gaps in our knowledge. These theories filling the gaps are not fallacy per se, just incomplete models unable to explain the magnitude of what is actually going on. Something deemed a mistake today could have been a beneficial adaption when the mutation was prevalent, an example would be an appendix or all the tiny bones in a human foot. Sometimes the animal produces a useless mutation (an extra appendage) or simply outlives the need of the previous mutation, when this happens it is not definitive proof of evolution it is only evidence or a precursor. I should also include that evolution may be gift from God, He most likely foresaw with Him being all knowing, a changing environment and a need for adaption.
I raised the question; if God exists and He created nature, then in turn did He not create radio waves and everything else. Even though, from humankind, I know where in nature the formation of these electromagnetic waves occur and where they lie on the spectrum, and I know how to recreate the waves or manipulate the waves myself, I still give credit where I feel credit is due. Yes, the idea that ‘if such and such is true than so and so much be true as well’ is a fallacy, but it is easily dismissed as one because we are incapable of explaining the forces acting in the universe with any clarity. The usage of the same fallacy is demonstrated when researchers say dark matter makes up the majority of the universe because this accounts for the missing mass they speculate should be there. If A equals B therefore C. These kinds of assumptions progress our understanding of reality, but as with all experimentation, we are all bound to believe some faulty ideas along the way. However, the theory that the sum of the human collective is greater than all it parts could be construed as a reference to being the supreme power, and therefore when it comes to disproving the existence of God, in any shape or form, it hasn’t been done yet. Crazy shit happens that science cannot explain just look at the influence of Phi in nature.
Now, an attack of character on the other hand, is a fallacy and more specifically, it is the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem. Trying to discredit a statement through an attack of character in my mind means, you don’t have a leg to stand upon. By attacking the person, the truth behind an idea will never see enlightenment. We will always become stuck arguing over who the bigger idiot is while only using opinions as evidence. In addition, to dismiss a fallacy just because it is a fallacy is a hasty generalization, which is a fallacy unto itself and is an inductive argument because it is only probable and not guaranteed that the system of beliefs comes from those character flaws. In reality, a person called credulous, gullible and misinformed could have concluded the presentence of something greater after deliberating on many religions and personal life experiences.
Lastly, until someone can provide an excellent reason as to why gravity is somehow holding the entire universe together while it expands in every direction, or why gravity causes localized contractions --the formation of stars and planets— while still expanding, or all those other mysteries, I will continue to believe in God’s control over all things, perceivable and not. Which is a fallacy called Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and is a false dichotomy because the two may not be related. I don’t even care if it is also a fallacy of begging to authority, because I feel even if we can find the glue holding everything together, it does not explain why it is held together. Just as spinning clusters of bubbles of soap in a sink of water, the universe was set into motion by something.
We may never be able to answer what God is or how God came into existence, but to say their isn’t a greater consciousness acting with intention is hard to believe. This is ‘the paper that became aware’ theory. In effect, by recording and observing intelligence, the record the mind creates becomes aware. This is indicative to the universe being God, and the multi-dimensions proposed through the sting theory are forms of consciousness and a record of every action. If so, anything is possible because we are conscious through God’s image or God’s projection.
Personally, I tend to believe in the idea of a grand architect, and not the idea everything came about through randomized collisions of subatomic particles. I choose to believe in something rather than nothing.