a break in the natural chain of cause-and-effect) that was bridged by miraculous-appearing divine action?
Sometimes a claim for a nature gap is ridiculed by calling it a “God of the gaps” theory. This is confusing because God of the gaps can have many meanings. It might be: • criticizing a claim that “God acts only in gaps” (which occurs if “natural” means “without God” which is bad theology so it should be harshly criticized) but usually this is not being claimed when a nature gap is proposed. • criticizing a claim that “a nature-gap is possible and we should consider this possibility” — and by doing this they are making a bold counter-claim that “a nature-gap is impossible” because it was not necessary (in a claim to know with CERTAINTY that the universe is 100% self-assembling, thus rejecting the reasons for caution outlined in Section 5D), or because God would not do • A critic who thinks “claiming a nature gap is unscientific” is proposing methodological naturalism. • If a critic rejects a specific claim that “in this historical situation a gap did occur” and instead claims that “a ga
