Yes although we haven’t sampled anything and don’t know everything the overarching recurring patterns suggest otherwise. If we look at it all of these have clear anthropocentric bias which has been clearly humbled they depend on local conditions of culture the actual details of evolution statistically don’t show any patterns that would be due to intent. The only defenses are last Thursdayism and science denial. Look at any paper many papers have tried to compare natural selection from a teleological process there are clear differences. The underlying engine of supernatural beliefs is the idea that human like agents have special powers that can suspend reality and the universe is based on human narratives and ideas which is contradicted by nearly all of science from humanity’s insignificance to the Copernican revolution to how hostile the universe is.

The problem is much more egregious than lack of proof or evidence the very engine of supernatural claims is rotten and misaligned with the way the world works from the grand scales to the most minute details from the recurring patterns to the anomalies.

Even if we can’t directly measure it there would still be clear statistical recurring patterns measurable need not mean isolate in a lab and see. This is how we find cheating or a rigged game we don’t have to physically measure. If there was intervention there would be clear statistical patterns. The problem with it not fitting is just the sheer volume of what it doesn’t fit it doesn’t merely not fit the facts the human narrative centric engine just is misaligned in a deep way with the way the universe operates in nearly every way and this goes beyond merely its not proven. We see what humans are emergent features of neurochemistry spawned by unguided evolution. We see how much of the universe is manifestly hostile to humans even out planet for 88% of it’s history.

But if other stations existed there would be clear traces unexplainable anomalies statistical patterns. Like I said this is how we trace cheating and a rigged machine even if we don’t know a person is there and who it is. We might see clear interference from other stations buffering that cannot be explained which would be correlated with other things. What we see is we have investigated the one station to its Fourier decomposition and found no external noise no strange patterns it behaves exactly like a closed system as far as our measurements are precise we also see every time there appears to be interference or things that could be a second station it’s always some subtlety we missed. This is a better analogy

Nobody dismisses odd things as they don’t fit the current paradigm that’s why we investigate the problem isn’t merely it contradicts one paradigm it contradicts the foundational engine of science and every recurring pattern to its most minute details so much so one has to resort to last Thursdayism. People can still look just not assume agency and human like agents. We don’t know everything but we know too much about the universe.

This seems to be an absence of evidence argument. Yes absence isnt usually evidence of absence key word usually it is if one expects evidence. Even if we couldn’t test it directly it would still leave clear traces in the world which science could study. If prayer worked and was significant we would see clear patterns and skews in hospital data of recoveries and see a universal correlation between prayer. We wouldn’t have to physically know the exact details. Science can test the supernatural in its effects if a ghost knocks over a book science can study the local environment and see was the falling over due to external perturbations. Again the problem goes beyond test ability it’s that the supernatural tries to fit a narrative human centric worldview onto a universe that wholly contradicts the idea to its most minute details.

I see the argument it’s that our tests are limited how so if a supernatural agent interferes in the world as is the type most people believe in there would be clear traces and effects. The analogy is misleading a better one is what if the patient claimed to have a broken leg and the doctor did all the tests found no fracture that would be evidence they didn’t. If the doctor did an x ray moved their leg asked them to move it and it was normal if they then did a ct scan no fracture that’s evidence they don’t have a fracture