I’m playing the devil’s advocate here.
God of the gaps is the product of well-intentioned Christians who want to acknowledge God as the ultimate mystery who explains all other mysteries. Nevertheless, God of the gaps dies easily when we find what the gaps actually are. For example, when the scientists postulated Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, many Christians argued that since the scientists could not provide the origin of the Big Bang, then the origin must be God. Of course, here God is construed as the first mover, very much alike the god of Aristotle. So, what happens if Stephen Hawking said that God hypothesis was not necessary for the universe to exist, that it is actually possible for the universe to self-create itself? The gap diminished into the thin air (assuming we suspend for a little while the plausibility of Hawking’s argument).
Honestly, I agree that to invoke “God” is not necessary as an explanation of things which we do not understand yet. Indeed, although to do so might begin with a motivation to properly revere God, ultimately it is idolatry, since God is simply used as an explanation. And God is not an explanation.
(Not to mention that to invoke “God” is sometimes used as a cheat code. If we can’t say anything about it, just assume that God is behind it. Again, it could be a signal of intellectual laziness.)
We start not with the possibility of God, but with the reality of God (Barth). God is the Lord and he encompasses all spheres of our life. And that’s why it is idolatry if we invoke God only to explain things which we can’t fathom in our life. Correspondingly, God would be domesticated to these compartments. We will call him if we need to, but otherwise we will live on as if God is not the Lord of our life. It might be a cliché, but it is true that if God is not the Lord of all, then he is not the Lord at all.