You said we need to explore the events to determine if they are supernatural. But two of my examples of supernatural events occurred in the deep past. The BB and the resurrection of Christ. How do you explore events in the deep past?
With the same principles you determine the factual situation about anything, it's just a bit more difficult. But you still don't draw a conclusion unless the evidence is sufficient to make that conclusion.
But the problem is that mainstream science has a philosophical bias against the possibility of the supernatural.
You're using the ostensible fact of a philosophical bias from science as a reason for a more favorable evaluation of the possibility of the supernatural. So when I say that you have to now support your claim that science has this bias, please don't offer as evidence the current position of science that there is no supernatural, as that would be circular reasoning (science doesn't accept the supernatural because they have a bias, and they have a bias because they don't accept the supernatural).
Do you have any evidence of some bias in mainstream science against the supernatural? It will have to be pretty widespread, by definition (of "mainstream" science).
Read Jerry Bergman's book "Silencing the Darwin Skeptics". It applies to cosmology as well.
I'm here for conversation. If you'd like to talk about what's in that book, that would be great. Otherwise, we won't be able to talk about it.
The astrophysicist Sara Seager says that we often have phenomena that remain unexplained. That is the career protective way of saying that it could be laws of physics violating, ie supernatural.
Again, you've put forward another claim - that unexplained phenomenon are merely a way to protect careers - that you will have to support and not just say it is so, and do so in a way that isn't circular. I await the non-circular evidence you present to support your claim.
That is not what most scientists say.
If you have something from scientists in general that says that something merely "appearing" to be the case, as distinct from actually being evidence that supports some claim, is evidence we can throw on the pile to conclude that X is the case, please present it. Otherwise, basic logic and definitions of words argues otherwise. Things that appear to be the case can easily not be the case, and how could science work if they accepted "appear" to be?
I agree we dont have a confirmed conclusion, but it is evidence.
Sure, it's evidence, but not enough evidence to reach a conclusion about the UFO, so the "U" in UFO remains.
