Alleged “God of the Gaps” arguments are normally meant as modus tollens arguments (with an implied conditional) [That is: 1. If p then q. 2. Not p. 3. Therefore not q.]1
• …Statistically, virtually no one argues from ignorance.2This is relevant because appeals to God an explanation which take the form of modus tollens by definition do not commit the so-called appeal to ignorance fallacy.
• …A modus tollens is regularly what is meant upon closer analysis.3
• …The principle of charity demands interpreting them as modus tollens.4
• Simon Blackburn: “it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings.” [The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Seven Stories Press, 2007, 78.]
Theists often conclude that God explains x using canonical argument forms (deductive, inductive, abductive). This is relevant because the literal “argument from ignorance” is not among these argument forms.