[chronic_loser]

You are arguing in a circle. You are stating that because scientific inquiry concerns itself with the observable, the repeatable, the quantifiable, and the reproducible (!), that if such inquiry supports a theory that something exists OUTSIDE the system, that theory must be rejected BECAUSE it is outside the system.

There is no intrinsic reason why science should be defined so, outside the materialistic prejudices of some of those who observe some of the data.
I would post more on the false bifucation between "natural" and "supernatural" world (the Christian position is that there is no such division, and that the activities of the "natural" world are simply repeated instances of what naturalists classify as "miracles"), but alas, work calls.

thanks for your kind, reasoned and enjoyable chat.

[crail]

that if such inquiry supports a theory that something exists OUTSIDE the system, that theory must be rejected BECAUSE it is outside the system.

No I'm saying the whole topic becomes unaddressable by science and should then be dealt with by philosophers, theologins, and so on. People who think about the big and aren't limited to operate within the rules of the scientific method. It's a different way of knowing, one outside science.