Again.... what can I say............................
Maybe an example will make you see the sillyness here:
A magician shows an empty hat.
He puts it on the table and says "abracadabra".
Lo and behold, he pulls a rabbit out of the hat.
Hypothesis 1: it's a trick. Don't know how he did it. But somewhere between showing the empty hat and pulling the rabbit out of it, he did something that made the rabbit end up in the hat. Or perhaps the rabbit was always in there and it just looked empty by playing around with clever angles while showing the hat.
Hypothesis 2: "abracadabra" was a magic spell and out of nothing the rabbit was conjured up inside the hat.
Hypothesis 2 requires suspension of natural law.
Which, without having any additional evidence, do you think is more likely right out the gates?
In this particular case hypotheiss 1 “wins”
But you made a more ambisious claim……….. “that naturalistic expalnations *always* win.
Consider this counter example.
1 You go to your house, and the drawers start to open and close
2 then you see a nebulous image of a friend of your that passed away few days ago
3 he talks to you and he explains to you that he is a ghost.
4 you have a conversation with him about a football game that you had with him in 3rth grade
5 other witnesses where with you and saw the same thing. and it was rcorded in a camera.
What hypothesis would be better.
1 i´ts a ghost (something that is typically labeled as supernarual)
2 it´s a hallucination (natrual).....................(reed point 5 before claiming that this is the best hypotheiss)
Assuming that you picked hypothesis 1, this proves that it is at least logically possible for natural hypothesis to lose vs something that would be labeled as supernatural.
This shows that naturalistic hypothesis don’t win by default…………