These are Professor AI’s overviews:
“God of the gaps” is a term describing the use of gaps in scientific knowledge as proof for the existence or action of God. It is an argument that appears when there is a lack of understanding or scientific explanation for a certain phenomenon, and the proposed explanation is that the phenomenon was caused by divine action.
In other words, when scientists still have not managed to explain a certain phenomenon, some people rush to explain it as an “act of God” instead of looking for scientific explanations.
The term “God of the gaps” is usually critical, because it points to reliance on ignorance rather than knowledge. As science advances and succeeds in explaining more and more phenomena, the “gaps” shrink, which can undermine religious faith.
For example, in the past, people attributed thunder and lightning to divine action. Today, with the scientific understanding of these phenomena, there is no need to rely on a religious explanation. If the God of the gaps is the basis for faith, then as science advances, faith may weaken.
Therefore, “God of the gaps” is not a strong argument for supporting the existence of God, but rather more an expression that the belief is based not on scientific knowledge but on a lack of understanding of natural phenomena.

Wait, so carry the insight forward: if you attach this claim—that the world does not require a creator—to the above understanding of God of the gaps, and the world has no creator, then the entire philosophical proof for a creator, meaning God who made and created the world, falls apart. And if so, then just as in other topics, when we arrive at this God-of-the-gaps claim, we remain in passive omission and do not rush to draw a conclusion. If so, then right now we are in a מצב of having no explanation for the complexity, and it requires further investigation. And if so, we have no basis to conclude that there is a creator who is God, and in any case there is no reason to run and observe commandments.

There is no connection at all. The argument is not based on the formation of matter but on the system of laws. And regarding that, I have explained more than once why this is not a God-of-the-gaps argument.

But both this and that are illogical. That is, it is illogical for matter to come into being by itself without a creator, and it is illogical that an ordered system of laws is not the handiwork of an arranger. So if on the first you pull out God of the gaps on me, why not pull it out on the second? And if on the second you decide that it does not belong to this claim, then on the first too you should decide that it does not belong to God of the gaps. (In Talmudic jargon this is called: whichever way you look at it.)

See column 506.