Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[SteveII]

I'm just chuckling at how simplistic this all is.

If I think Rob has a dog, but find no evidence of a dog, that doesn't mean he must therefore have a cat.  Several other possibilities exist, including him actually owning a dog and being particular about hiding evidence for it.

So, if a natural event doesn't have a yet known natural cause, that doesn't mean the cause must be the supernatural.  Several other possibilities exist, including a yet undiscovered natural cause for that event.

There's no need for equations or anything, just a basic grasp of what a very obvious fallacy is.

For your point to mean anything, you need to discuss the supernatural in vague terms. However, you have just erected a straw man because that is not how people who believe in the supernatural consider this question AT ALL.

Look at the example above. If Jesus did do this thing in the context described, are you still going to hide behind "undiscovered natural causes?" No, only an idiot would think that. So what you have to say is that these events did not exist. Notice you are not really making the same argument you claim to be.