Great post. I'm saving it as well.<quoted text>
I'm inclined to agree that natural causes should be considered before supernatural causes. But insisting that supernatural causes have to be testable to verify their existence seems extreme to me. If there are supernatural beings, they must be capable of free movement between our time/space existence and another plane of existence. Paranormal investigators use thermal scanners and sound recording equipment, and have developed fair criteria to determine whether or not an event is natural or supernatural. The methodologies are constantly being evaluated and improved to look for fraudulent practices in the field environment.
I find that the charge of "insufficient evidence" is too much of a convenient argument. It appears to be a philosophical and emotional escape hatch for the atheist who doesn't wish to find himself or herself cornered by evidence that is difficult to refute. It allows for too much "subjective value" which is emotionally based at the core, while grasping for whatever naturalist philosophies will support the atheistic worldview.
Very concise and rational.