Science is inherently atheistic

[Angrboda]

---

Since you weren't quoting anyone, your post leads nowhere.  Please link or post said definition.  If it's the usual "supernatural is that which is not natural" then that doesn't wash.  Apophatic definitions aren't real definitions.  If I define the contents of my apartment as those things which are not outside my apartment, that doesn't tell you what those things are because the class involved is necessarily indeterminate.

---

I was quoting someone, you. You stated "This depends on what you mean by the supernatural."  and then blurbed on with your own straw man argumentum ad populum that most people who "advance similar arguments don't have any real idea what they mean by supernatural"  and then I cited the common definition of supernatural as

---

supernatural
[soo-per-nach-er-uh l, -nach-ruh l]
See more synonyms for supernatural on Thesaurus.com
adjective

  of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
   of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
   of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

Bolding by me cite: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural

---

If you have problems with an Apophatic definitions, write to them. If you have a problem with a word being useful in description by claim the negative, then take it up with hard atheists. If you would like to clearly define what supernatural IS instead of ISN'T, we can press on with that. The contents of your apartment are the contents of your apartment. Anything not fitting in that definition is conversely NOT the contents of your apartment, unless you bring them into your apartment. That grows the definition of what's in your apartment.

If our universe contains everything that can be defined by natural law and phenomena, then supernatural phenomena are either outside our universe or as yet unexplainable by current methods available.

I don't have to write to them, both because your complaint is not cogent and because you have claimed the definition as your own. Apophatic definitions have many problems, and since I'm not the one using or claiming the term, I don't have to present any kind of definition about what it is. You do. I don't think you make much sense. We can have a positive definition of the contents of my apartment. If you had a positive definition of the contents of the class supernatural, the analogy would be appropriate. Since you don't have such a definition, your take on the analogy is just a false analogy, and so the rest of your post is irrelevant. As noted, the class of things that belong to such a negative definition is not is indeterminate, not just in practice, but in principle. As such, the term supernatural as you have defined it can never tell us what the supernatural is. If you can't tell me what the supernatural is, then the word has no definite meaning and suggesting that it exists is incoherent. If you actually have an argument that it is coherent based upon an apophatic definition, please make it. The one's you've just given do not fly.

PS. If you just want to take pointless swipes at hard atheists, knock yourself out. I'll note it on your character sheet.