I think that "atheism of the gaps" is a legitimate fallacy, but not one that atheists often make. I think this term has the annoying potential to be thrown incorrectly at atheists if it starts becoming mainstream.
This is why I say that the universe must contain time. The universe is best thought of as a static 4-dimensional shape of which slices are all we can perceive. What really bites is that we all perceive different slices of this 4-dimensional shape, and how would that be possible if the universe were only 3D?
While I can find no fault with the deductive validity of this argument - the conclusion certainly seems to follow from the premises - I'm afraid this is as successful as the argument gets. Not just one, but both of the premises commit logical fallacies which they hide in the vagueness of their formulation.
It feels about time that age-old question "why is there something rather than nothing?" should notice it's old age and finally die off. While the question seemed all-important and pertinent to the ancients, what we now know about the nature of the universe renders it obsolete.
The state of the universe around us offers far more support to the hypothesis that the universe is not designed for humanity, than it does to the contrary. The universe looks exactly how we'd expect if it were not created.
To anyone who doesn't use abstract mathematics on a daily basis, the concept of an imaginary number sounds absurd. We can't use them to count things, as we can with natural numbers.
If we see green apples fall from a tree every day, why should we reason inductively and conclude that every apple that falls from the tree will be green? Why not conclude instead that the next apple to fall from the tree will be red?