Hi Jon,
I know that you have spend a great deal of time and effort dealing with providence. My comment was meant to show that we have a coherent theology that commences with the ontological view (e.g. Athanasius) and this leads us to Aquinas, as you say. I view the foundational as being from nothingness and existence of objects as things as they are (and meant to be by God) as a general statement - if we look for a counter to this, we are left with separated from God and His creation, which is nothingness. These remarks mean that a meaningful and coherent outlook is built on these foundations, and this includes the way we may discuss the attributes of God using imperfect language, while understanding the one-ness of the one true God, and the objects that constitute the creation. The details can lead to a very lengthy discussion and this is not the place for this.
When we discuss our own existence and how events may unfold, I have made some brief comments some time ago. Thus Aleo has provided an account of his experience and his belief is this illustrates a providential work of God, with the mystery that is associated with such unique events. My view is that in such examples, we commence with belief when we discuss such accounts, based on the general belief that God is good and He shows (or displays) His Grace and Goodness through such events. Laws of nature and statistical analysis fails to capture faith, grace and goodness, so I would think such approaches may fall short of the mark.
When I say some statements are improper, I am saying these are not part of the theological discussion - or saying it another way, we would agree that God sustains and determines all events and acts in His Creation, as a statement of faith, and a theology has been developed to show this is reasonable and coherent. We cannot however, make a determination that such and such a scientific observation shows how God has acted in a specific instance. I like the way Aquinas deals with these matters.