Presumption of naturalism

[robvalue]

"supernatural" is only defined as being inexplicable by natural law or "outside" natural law. The current hypotheses surrounding the beginning of the universe are currently supernatural or outside natural laws or require the natural laws to "not apply". Supernatural can be a place holder until a verifiable natural law can explain the perceived phenomena but super-naturalism in itself is not false.

In such cases, wouldn't the word "unexplained" would be sufficient and less ambiguous? To class something as "outside natural law" implies we have a comprehensive knowledge of natural law, which we clearly do not. We probably never will.

I don't believe supernatural has an agreed, meaningful/useful definition.