Sherlock Holmes said, “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Although the statement may be valid, many have pointed out that “eliminating the impossible” is an arduous task and is practically impossible. 

However, what about the inverse, or a reformation of it? “All explanations that we know to be impossible should be eliminated in favor of explanations known to be possible” 

For example, suppose I win the state lottery three times in a row. If I go to Sherlock and then tell him that I believe an angel helped me win, would he be correct in stating that me winning by luck is a favorable explanation over the angel helping me, and hence should be eliminated as an explanation?