When it comes to the Ontological Argument how do you keep a person from dismissing the idea that God is the first uncaused cause as just being another “god of the gaps” scenario?
I think you mean the Kalam Cosmological Argument, correct? I would say it’s not a God of the gaps scenario because it’s an inference to an explanation that makes sense based on what we do know. For example, we observe in the real world that information comes from minds. The beginning of the world made information come into existence, and therefore it makes sense that a mind brought it into existence.
On the flip side, atheists are actually making an “evolution of the gaps” or a “science of the gaps” argument by trying to insert these processes into an inappropriate situation. Even though they can’t explain how these processes could account for the design, fine tuning, and initial act of creation, they hope it will someday. Does that make sense?