Hi Natufian.
***Maybe a better answer is that we don’t know yet.***
The complete sentence would be: Maybe a better answer is that we don’t know yet but we are only willing to consider one possibility.... that it occurred naturally.
***Over time people have thought just about everything that wasn’t obvious was supernatural. The lost is almost endless (rain, heat, drought, disease, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, landslides, eclipses, the moon, comets etc, etc).***
None of those things violate natural law, they are part of nature. The two examples that I gave (and there are others) do.
“The complete sentence would be: Maybe a better answer is that we don’t know yet but we are only willing to consider one possibility.... that it occurred naturally.”
The scientific method only has tools that can deal with the natural. How do you propose that science investigates the supernatural? What would such an experiment look like, how would the results be demonstrated?
“None of those things violate natural law, they are part of nature. The two examples that I gave (and there are others) do.”
Scientific laws are valid until evidence of sufficient weight is brought to light that requires them to be re-evaluated.
The point I was making is that all of those things were considered at one time to be supernatural. The reason you class them as being part of ‘natural law’ is that science has shown them to be so. So again, what makes you think that the things you consider now to be likely of supernatural origin won’t at some point to also be shown to be part of natural law?