Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[KevinM1]

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.