For us to argue the existence of god, we need to define 2 things: What does it mean to exist, and what does it mean to be god?
As previous commentators have noted, 'god of the gaps' explanations have historically been disappointing for theists. If we were arguing 500 years ago, you'd say: "But we don't what causes lightning! It must be god!" (or the gods, depending on who you asked) Now we know it's electrostatics. "But we don't know why people get sick! It must be demons!" And then Redi and Pasteur kicked God out of that hole. "But we don't know the origin of the universe!" Well, not yet. But I know this: The same evidence that shows that the universe had a beginning ALSO shows that the universe is billions of years old, not ~6000 as the Bible teaches. So you can't have it both ways. And CS Lewis' argument from morality (Universal Lawgiver) is suspect as well: Before the fall, Adam and Eve had no conscience (knowledge of good and evil). Yet, they were "very good."
I guess what interests me is the entire fuzziness of the debate. "Christian" means to follow Christ. That's it. There are Christians that believe all sorts of things, from Zen Christianity to Agnostic Christianity to Charismatic Christianity.
Heck, for all I know you can be an atheist and a Christian. After all, many of the first Christians were put to death for being atheists.
Yet we lump all those hundreds of millions of variations all into some cartoon conglomerate and then poke sticks at it. Talk about straw man arguments. Why the oversimplification?