The origin of biology

[Esquilax]

Without appealing to the lack of a natural explanation for one or more observations of the real world, how did you determine that the supernatural had a positive likelihood?

You are making a logical fallacy.

You are (correctly) assuming that the set of possible explanations expand in the presence of new evidence.
But you are ignoring that new evidence can also shrink the set of possible explanations.

Accordingly, its is completely fine to say that two statements:
A     and      NOT A 
are both possible, with non-zero likelihood, until further evidence reduces the likelihood of one of them to exact zero

If either A or not A cannot be established as possible, and are in fact indicated to be impossible or non-present by all available data, then there's no reason at all to assign a positive likelihood to them. You're shifting the burden of proof by expecting us to prove you wrong before you'll take your bald assertion of the supernatural off the table. The fallacy is yours, not mine, and my question stands.

... You know, along with the rest of the post that you clipped out.