OBJ-004: “God-of-the-gaps”

Target claim(s)

Any move where divine action is introduced as a patch for a current unknown rather than as a constraint-driven necessity.

The objection (steelman)

“You’re invoking God wherever current science has gaps. As science advances, those gaps close, and your ‘God’ retreats. This isn’t truth; it’s opportunistic explanation.”

Why it seems compelling

History contains many failed “God did it because we don’t know” arguments.

Reply (logic-first)

• Constraint-first, not gap-first: introduce grounding/termination/control inputs only where the system cannot be closed under its own dynamics without violating its own axioms.
• Demand compression: the divine layer must reduce arbitrary degrees of freedom, not add them.
• Demand signatures: any claim of intervention must correspond to a distinct test hook, or it remains purely interpretive.

What would change my mind

• If divine terms only ever appear where ignorance exists and never yield distinctive constraints/predictions, treat them as rhetorical and remove from the formal layer.