Absolute criteria would be an unattainable, but approachable ideal of certainty. The greater the probability and statistical confidence, the closer you are to the ideal.
Not unlike what you referred to earlier when you stated that "our proofs must be compatible with our nature"
That's not "metaphysical." Our nature is material. Our size, and our makeup determines what we can and cannot do, what we can and cannot see, etc.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as an event in space/time history - would that qualify as something supernatural in your mind?
Not necessarily.
Then it wouldn't be absolute.
The greater the probability and statistical confidence, the closer you are to the ideal.
That still doesn't explain the criteria. You have to know what the ideal IS first, not just what you think it is. It requires an objective, outside standard to which to compare and anything man sets up is philosophical in nature and therefore subjective, which makes it useless in determining anything *absolute*.
The statement, "Our nature is material" is itself a metaphysical statement, which make it self-referentially incoherent.
Cordially,