Alleged “God of the Gaps” arguments are normally meant as modus tollens arguments (i.e. of the valid form, 1. If p then q. 2. Not q. 3. Therefore not p.)1
Consider 3 reason to agree, namely…
• …statistically, virtually no one argues from ignorance.2
• …a modus tollens is regularly what is meant upon closer analysis.3
• …the principle of charity demands interpreting them as modus tollens.4
This is relevant because appeals to God as an explanation which take the form of modus tollens by definition do not commit the so-called appeal to ignorance fallacy.
• 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.