Presumption of naturalism

[robvalue]

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.

Rob, I tend to see a recurring pattern with you referring to unanimous definitions.  Do you believe truth to be relative?

I don't understand the first sentence, sorry. I like to agree on definitions of words before a debate rather than halfway through, sure. I find your definition of supernatural to be a very loaded way of saying unexplained. You seem to assume that unexplained phenomena are not natural until they are proved to be natural; that's an argument from ignorance.

"Breakdown of natural law" is talking about our current models failing, it doesn't mean there isn't any natural law explaining it. We describe nature, we don't prescribe it.

But for the purposes of this discussion, you can call unexplained supernatural, it makes no difference to me!

I don't really understand the question either, or what it's got to do with anything. Relative to what? But I'll say no, truth isn't relative.