Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[possibletarian]

if it is doing something, that activity is in its nature.

This is the metaphysical question begging that everyone here is doing. You are sure, a priori, that it must be so.

In what way could your assertion here be falsified?

We define something by the character of it's observable nature, if a frog is singing then that is it's observed behaviour, we no longer consider it an already classified frog, it's a new species with a new observable nature. The Mozartion Croakuss perhaps.

You could falsify it by simply proving for instance that it was a clever ploy, that it was not actually the frog singing, but a very clever mini-speaker inserted in its mouth. But if it is in fact the frog singing, then that's its nature. It's existence is also provable and observable.

Your question here is like me saying i have three grapes in my hand, so if i always have the same number of grapes in my hand i will always have three.  Then you coming along and saying ''How is that falsifiable''?   As though you have made some great point in the debate.

---

I think that the fundamental disconnect here is that Bel thinks he's defending the "beauty" of supernatural narratives.  He's failed to accurately address what believers in the supernatural (purportedly not him) are refering to when they discuss the supernatural..and like any other person steeped in a naturalist framework, has trouble expressing the idea of the supernatural as a separate category from the natural.  

Arguably, this strips supernatural narratives of the very beauty he seeks to defend - beauty found in their comments on the human condition, not on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Bel has asserted that the supernatural is a logical impossibility contained to things that nothing does which cannot be observed.  His pleas for some proof that this concept is false are likely genuine.  He does not possess the knowledge, semantics, or rhetorical skill to express as much on his own.  As his entire existence here at af has been one long running screed against dumb atheists, he's unlikely to accept any such demonstration no matter who or how many times he's given exactly what he's asked for....because he believes that atheists just don't  "get it".  He's here to educate us, not the other way round, lol.

I don't think I've ever seen such a long overly worded god of gaps type argument before, it's good mental exercise though, as theists often think along similar lines, that to not be able to disprove something that is defined as nothing we could know exists is somehow evidence.

---

Supernatural exists as a product of the human mind exclusively.

I've never seen evidence of existence, only anecdotes and arguments, which is what I'm seeing here.

Worst use of philosophy ever.

Exactly, you would think people would catch on, and i think many church goers / supernatural believers do, they simply love the lifestyle.