OBJ-003: “Category error (theology vs physics)“

Target claim(s)

Any “God = X” or “Trinity = operators” statement that reads as a literal identity rather than a typed mapping.

The objection (steelman)

“You’re mixing categories. Physics describes measurable regularities of the material domain; theology speaks of God. Turning theological claims into operators is a misuse of math that generates confusion, not knowledge.”

Why it seems compelling

Bad apologetics often swaps metaphor for proof: it uses scientific language as authority.

Reply (logic-first)

• Enforce explicit mapping language: operator formalization is a modeling layer, not a claim that physics proves doctrine.
• Type discipline prevents the illegitimate move: using an equation as “evidence” for a metaphysical conclusion.
• The only legitimate empirical pressure is downstream: does the mapping yield unique predictions or explanatory compression without contradiction?

What would change my mind

• If the framework cannot clearly separate “mapping” from “identity”, it should be rewritten to remove equivocation or abandoned as incoherent.