So, potentially, the circumstances could exist, maybe. (Let's just say I'm "tentative."
)
Ahh, wise man.
But, more importantly, there's perhaps an infinite number of simpler supernatural explanations as well.
If supernatural explanations can (maybe) be allowed to pass occam's razor, then they could be compared with each other. The vast majority of the "infinite amount of simpler" explanations are completely speculative; we have absolutely no evidence relating to them. Cutting these explanations, and going with more complex ones, is not violating occam's razor because we
need to disregard them.
We are left with others, including the Judeo-Christian God. We can examine these different ideas and discard those which are necessary to disregard, so as to not break occam's razor. In the end, I believe the Judeo-Christian God is the only idea which remains.
So betting that a supernatural explanation is going to turn out to be right isn't a good bet. So far nobody who's made that bet has won.
By definition noone can win that bet. If something actually is supernatural, it is impossible to prove it is supernatural, so nobody wins that bet. If something isn't supernatural, that will be shown sooner or later, and the "supernaturalist" loses. I do agree, though, that many things formerly thought of as supernatural have been shown to be natural.