Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[The Grand Nudger]

I will clarify since this has become disjointed.

You're not clarifying, you're trying to split the baby - and that's fine...but that -is- what I'm asking you about.

1. If a religious belief conflicts with a scientific fact, it should be discarded. Scientific fact can disprove a religious claim if the religious claim is making statements about the natural world--how the world is. (for example: world is center of the universe, sickness is a judgement from God, the earth is 6000 years old, and other traditional god-of-the-gaps beliefs that have been dismissed). 
2. Scientific facts have no bearing on the possibility of supernatural causes because claims of supernatural causes do not make claims about the natural world. In fact, when weighing whether a supernatural event happened, we rely on science to tell us if a natural cause is possible/probable.]

b-mine.

Then there's no need to reference a metric that you do not accept as applicable.  You have not done so, you've simply termed those contradictory narratives "supernatural" and so exempt from the criteria that -you- proposed.  The one cannot be consistently maintained in the face of the other. So which should we do, and why, again.....?

The trouble doesn't end there, ofc.

The world -is- the center of the universe, supernaturally.
Sickness -is- a judgement from god, supernaturally.
The earth -is- 6000 years old, supernaturally.

You cannot consistently dismiss these, unless your opinion on the exemption of the supernatural is abandoned and we re-assume the previously abandoned metrics.

Not only are you proposing inconsistent metrics, you're inconsistently -applying- them. It's all a hot fucking mess and there's no point to it whatsoever. You have not done what you propose should be done, and that's okay..because, according to your own comments, it cannot -be- done. You don't believe in the silly shit™, but it's not for the rationalizations presented to us here.