God of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, God is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where God is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing PHYSICAL lifeforms, God is no more plausible than they are as an explanation. As for the arguments themselves:
The cosmological argument = God of the gaps: We think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause. Aside from the fact that this is a God of the gaps argument, it's also hindered by the fact that we do not yet know whether or not the big bang truly was the beginning or not.
FAIL!
The teleological argument = God of the gaps: We see complexity, we need an explanation for complexity, so we throw God in as the explanation. Yet another God of the gaps argument, & one which can easily be refuted in most instances these days anyway. Complexity does not necessarily equate to design, abiogenesis & evolution provide compelling natural explanations for life & it's diversity, for example. This is a very old argument & not surprisingly, it isn't used much anymore, not by serious apologists for God anyway.
FAIL!
The fine tuning argument = God of the gaps: Arguably a subset of the teleological argument, this one is much the same & suffers from similar fallacious God of the gaps reasoning. To simply explain away mysteries of the universe with a "God did it" explanation is no way to understand anything. And with this argument, the very existence of alternative explanations (the laws being set in stone, many worlds, a series of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, the multiverse, it's all one big computer simulation, etc) downgrades the God explanation to the status of 'just another possible explanation', & while it is a possible explanation, it isn't the only one & is arguably not the best one. To say that the fine tuning argument proves their MUST be a God is wrong, the fine tuning argument merely proves that their MIGHT be a God, & that is very different.
FAIL? Well, certainly not a win anyway!
The private revelation argument = God of the gaps: So you had a weird experience eh? Well, i think the possibility that your brain is malfunctioning is a little more convincing than the idea that the sovereign of the universe spoke to you, sorry. Something weird happened which you can't explain? Fine, but don't go straight for the God explanation, that's just presumptuous & a tad arrogant.
FAIL!
The historicity of the bible = God of the gaps: Okay, so putting to one side the fact that most sensible people do not even accept that most of what is in the bible is historically accurate, this is still just another case of "weird things happened that we can't explain, so it must have been God!" Seriously, is that the best your imagination can do? It's getting silly at this point, it really is. I mean to me, even the possiblity of aliens is more convincing than God, though still not that convincing really.
FAIL!
The ontological argument = okay, not a God of the gaps argument, but certainly not a 'decent' argument, just pure silliness actually: Another old argument, medieval in fact, & thus, it falls prey to medieval thinking. One can imagine a greatest possible being, perfect in every way, & one of the qualities necessary for perfection is existence, therefore this being exists. I won't argue that were this being to exist, it would arguably fit most descriptions of God (although it wouldn't mean that this particular God necessarily created the universe, or us) but this argument falls flat for two reasons. Firstly, it's fucking stupid, & secondly, existence is not a quality, it is a prerequisite for possessing qualities. The ontological argument is based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'qualities'. And anyway, if such a being existed, you'd still have all of your work ahead of you to show that this being was the God of the bible, especially since the God of the bible was far from being the 'greatest possible being', iron chariots anyone?
FAIL!
The rest: The rest are things like 'the love argument' & 'the moral argument', which simply state that without God we cannot have objective morality or objective explanations of love, some even say that we cannot know morality or love at all without God. Well, maybe they're right, who cares, none of this proves that God exists, it merely proves that the things which we humans old closely & revere are, *gasp* rather fragile & lacking in solid foundations. Wow! Who ever would have ever guessed it?! ¬_¬
FAIL? Well as far as proving God, yes! But as far as putting humans in their place, i think we can call this one a success, though that's hardly the goal of the apologists for God is it? Or is it?
At the end of the day i'd say this, even if any of the arguments were convincing, which none of them particularly are, the person making the argument still wouldn't have much of a case. You can't argue God into existence, you need physical evidence, or at the very least a mathematical model of some kind, & when it comes to God, the best physical evidence we have are the anecdotal arguments of people claiming to have met God, & they're about as reliable as people who claim to have met (& usually to have had sex with) aliens, & we all know what we think of them. And as for mathematical models? Well, since even string theory is laughed at by lots of scientists today, a mathematical God theory would probably blow the roof off!
Wow, what a pointless thread.