which is that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything.
yes. This is a good assumption and one that should
be made. Why? Because every single supernatural explanation we have used in the past has been demolished by naturalistic explanations. Because supernatural explanations do not actually explain
anything. Because supernatural explanations do not make accurate predictions.
Let us look at illness. Once upon a time it was thought to be caused by "evil spirits". That explanation is a projection of our selves onto the problem. What causes illness? Invisible people. That explanation predicts we could scare away or placate these invisible people through various methods - scary masks, rituals, offerings, etc. Thus, illness could be avoided using these methods. Did that actually explain anything? Heck no. Was that an accurate prediction? Heck no.
Fast forward a couple thousand years, and we came to understand illness comes from a variety of germs, bacteria and viruses. Does that explain? Heck yes. Does it make accurate predictions? Heck yes.
Science 1, primitive supernatural beliefs 0.
Need we tally up the score of the whole game or is this example illustrative?
... but this does not suggest that this line of inquiry can ever completely describe reality.
To describe some mechanism does not rule out agency.
Actually, it does. If gravity works the same way every time, all the time, then it is pretty safe to say if there is an invisible person behind it, the invisible person cannot do it any other way, is not at liberty to do otherwise. Thus, the invisible gravity person has no agency and is indistinguishable from a natural law.
Sure, gravity may describe the paths of the planets, but that does not rule out the possibility they are not pulled by gods in charriots through their respective courses. <-- this is what you are saying.
To use evidence from mechanisms to suggest God lives in a gap that science hasn't explained yet is like trying to prove a painting didn't have a painter by measuring the dimensions of the frame and describing the chemical composition of the paint.
I don't see the analogy, but that doesn't really matter. None of us are saying god lives in a gap. That is what the religious people do. We say gods only live in your imaginations.
God is the Creator of the Universe, and science hasn't gotten anywhere near His territory.
That is a tautology without basis. The only reason to think yhwh is the creator of the universe is because that is what it says in his dusty PR manual written by his PR agents.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "science hasn't gotten anywhere near his territory." Until you clarify that, I cannot speak to it.
Why does a mind behind the Universe seem implausible to you?
For a lot of reasons. For one, where did the mind come from? For two, I have no reason to suppose such a mind. For three, a mind is an emergent trait of a brain, which is a physical organ. When the brain dies, the mind disappears. No brain, no mind. You are talking about a disembodied personality, which is a contradiction in terms. Where in the world have you or anyone else ever encountered a disembodied personality?