What I am talking about is adhering to methodological naturalism, because metaphysical naturalism doesn't make sense (claiming that which your system can't detect doesn't exist, argument from ignorance).
Science also has no business defining "truth." The guilty here exist on both sides. On one hand you have people such as Dawkins trying to say science gives truth, and on the other hand you have religious people who think science threatens their religion as an alternate truth. Such people are creating a problem where one doesn't really need to exist.
But you don't adhere to methodological naturalism. You drift from methodological naturalism (which is fine BTW) over into philosophical naturalism, which doesn't make any more sense than metaphysical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is just the other side of the same coin with metaphysical naturalism. You also try to use methodological naturalism to defend your drift over into philosophical naturalism which doesn't make any sense either.
That 'argument from ignorance' is exactly what philosophical naturalism uses when convenient and ignores when convenient. That is why it is a philosophy.
The position you defend makes no more sense than the position you reject. That's why your choice is philosophical, not empirical. Shame that you don't understand that.