I submit this:
1) It is possible that something is going on that we are not fully capable of grasping.
2) If something is going on that we are not fully capable of grasping then it would be wrong to reach firm conclusions based upon only things we are capable of grasping.
However, you are attempting to reach a firm conclusion based upon only that which we fully understand. For us to reach a right conclusion we MUST therefore presuppose that we understand everything.
I believe that this is a flawed presupposition.
But... if there is something we don't know and we also don't know that we can't know it, how could someone ever be expected to wait to make decisions based on that lack of knowledge about a lacking understanding what we lack knowledge of to make a decision? How could we ever hope to know what we don't know we don't know and, even if we did, couldn't understand?
That seems like a "god of the gaps" argument to me.
I am learning a lot about constructing a logically valid argument from this thread. And the meaning of the word "obfuscation".