> > That's a good method. However, one common problem there is that people often choose the simplest method after discarding the supernatural as a possibility.
> >
> That's because choosing the supernatural explanation after running out of natural explanations amounts to saying, "Well, we looked really hard for a way to explain this, but nothing's come up yet, so we'll just say it can't be explained and be done with it." If you can't solve a problem, you wait for more methods and wisdom to come along. It make take a very long time, but you don't give up and say that the supernatural explanation is plausible.

Please say you didn't mean to write this paragraph this way. The argument you provided is a prime example of the problem the first paragraph mentions. It assumes a priori that the supernatural is not a viable explanation. That is a statement taken on faith. Science makes no claims about the universe; if empirical data lead to a supernatural explanation, so be it.

Same with discussing the definition of 'supernatural.' Initially assuming there is no supernatural, the supernatural must instead be labeled as something natural we do not yet understand. There is no call to do so otherwise.

I'm speaking in generics. I do not believe the supernatural is required for the regular workings of the world. But I could be wrong.

gabby