What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Undeceived]

The key here is the nonmaterial does not, by scientific standards, affect the material in a repeatable way. The moment we see it is repeatable (as are all things tested by the scientific method), we call it 'natural' whether it is or not-- we call them "natural laws": we observe them but do not understand why they are what they are. The cause may be nonmaterial at its origins, but science would never pronounce it so. For example, scientists are still looking for the smallest particle that determines attraction, weight, and every other law applied to matter. If naturalists ever got to that point, they would stop looking for a smaller particle and just assume that one as their premise going forward. Never mind why the particle is a law in itself, and how it came to be a law in itself, science is concerned only with natural phenomena. When it comes to the brink of the supernatural, when a nonmaterial cause is even hinted at, science stops and simply accepts what is before it. You know this is true. Is it fair?

As for your understanding of the scientific method - you are way off base. Something doesn't necessarily have to be repeatable to be within the purview of science.

If the results of an experiment are unable to be replicated, science throws them out. We're not talking about their purview-- every experiment has to be in the "interest range" of scientists to be conducted in the first place! When did this argument shift from discussing objective measurement to speculating about subjective anticipation?

On the contrary, we've found that once we understand it, it becomes repeatable.

Could you explain, please? In my experience, I don't understand something unless it happens more than once or changes with the manipulation of a single variable.

As for natural laws, the entire field of science is devoted not just to figuring out what they are but why they are as they are. And finally, science doesn't stop at the first hint of supernatural - it plows on to discover it is, in fact part of the natural.

Exactly. The bias is to withhold judgment until a natural solution is found. That might be a fine practice in discovering how things work but science has never discovered a solution natural or supernatural why things work. Scientific laws are in the "why" category. Not only has a "why" never been found, but hundreds of philosophers have argued why it can never be found (it requires ending the chain of efficient causes as we know it--a logical fallacy). So why don't we move into the realm of philosophy for answers rather than holding out for the improbable?