The article does not promote an “argument from ignorance” or “God of the Gaps argument”. To say my argument is so without addressing the principles in my reasoning is just stating an argument by definition which is not a valid critic. The article does not promote the idea if there is no known natural explanation, then there must me a supernatural explanation. The article discusses the procedures to go through to determine what are all the possible natural explanations.
This is what scientist do normally in the common process of elimination. If scientist have properly done this and eliminate all natural explanations except for one, then they are correct to conclude the one remaining natural explanation is the correct natural explanation. My article just extends this to eliminate just one more natural explanation, the last remaining one, then they are correct to conclude there is evidence for supernatural intervention. .
So if you reject the approach my article proposes for identifying supernatural intervention, then you are essentially rejecting the scientific approach.
Your's is a fool's errand. You run into the problem of proving a negative, something that can not be done. You can never determine ALL the possible natural explanations. There is always one more lurking under the next rock or over the next hill. Since you can not account for them all, your logic crumbles and you are left in full retreat into the very “argument from ignorance” or “God of the Gaps argument” that you claim to not promote.
I agree many times religious people have promoted arguments for the supernatural that are “arguments from ignorance” or “God of the Gaps arguments”. My article provides a means to show these arguments are not sufficient. My article provides sufficient reasoning for identifying supernatural intervention.
That is your claim. You claim has been shown to be false.
Scientific arguments do come in different strength as most always they use probabilities as part of the reasoning to eliminate other explanations.
That does not solve your problem, to validate your premise you must eliminate ALL possible natural explanations and that is impossible to do, some statistical subset does not cut the mustard.
If you reject this valid approach then you have a means for rejecting any possible evidence for the supernatural.
As has been demonstrated, your approach is not valid. That I've yet to see any possible evidence for the supernatural is another story entirely.
For instance, if all the stars in the sky aligned and spelt out "God Exist" then one could just say this is not evidence for God because there still may be some unknown natural explanation. This would be an approach that is invincible to the evidence so would be unfalsifiable. The scientific process is supposed to be falsifiable.
You are just trying to use the structure of the old argument that it is impossible to disprove the existance of a god. As Susan Jacoby said (long before you); “Of course an atheist can’t prove there isn’t a God, because you cannot prove a negative. The atheist basically says that based on everything I see around me, I don’t think so. Every rational thing I see and have learned about the world around me says there isn’t a God, but as far as proving there isn’t a God, no one can do that. Both the atheist and the agnostic say that.”
"