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

[Belacqua]

It doesn't matter, you can't claim to believe the supernatural is impossible and claim to believe there is evidence for the supernatural.

I didn't say the supernatural is impossible. I said I didn't believe in it.

Keep in mind the doxa on this forum: a lack of belief is not an assertion of non-existence. 

If you were to read what I said, you'd see that what I call evidence is data that is interpreted in a certain way. Interpreted in one way, by people who are open to it, all kinds of things are evidence for the supernatural. I haven't discussed how it is that *I* interpret the data.

---

It's dishonest, he is trying to play both sides of the fence and he ends up stating things that are contradictory.

I'm sorry that you haven't read my posts closely enough to see that what you're claiming here is false.

---

And you have never described how to find the 'nature' of a thing.

The nature of a thing is what it is and does. We learn this through scientific study.

So, if a frog is singing, that is part of its nature: it is what it is and does.

Your entire argument, as far as I can see, is asserting this over and over.

---

Do you think of the supernatural as a force of some kind? Or a realm? Are there things that exist as supernatural entities? If the supernatural exists, it must have some ontological presence or form, yeah? What is the nature of the supernatural?

If you refer back to the definition I've given several times, you'll see that I define the supernatural as when something acts over and above its nature. So I haven't said anything about some supernatural thingy with form and ontology. I've only talked about events. 

To explain how such events occur, some people might posit a force or realm or something. This thread hasn't addressed that part yet. I haven't thought about it much. If there were some kind of separate realm from what we know, I expect that what happens there happens in accord with its nature. So it would be natural. But I haven't brought up separate realms and I have no idea how they would work.

It is helpful for me to see that this is probably what people have in mind: not just inexplicable events but some kind of unknown realm. 

Additionally, what positive characteristics or attributes disqualify the supernatural from the category of natural? 

If the nature of a thing rules out certain actions, but we see those actions happen anyway, then we distinguish that it's not natural but supernatural. If it turns out, as poly asserts, that anything an object does is actually in that object's nature, then it's not a supernatural event. 

Think of something with a nature. People, for example, are made of people stuff, do people things, and live in people ways. That's their nature. If we see someone do something that people can't do, then it's not natural. 

And, if the supernatural can interact with the natural world, and affect it in a discernible way, shouldn’t we be able to detect it somehow?

Yes, of course. If a person does something which natural people can't do, it might well affect the natural world. 

So let's assume it's against the nature of a person to fly to Jupiter and push it out of orbit. (I hope we can all agree that this is not a part of a person's nature.) If a person did this, it would affect the natural world. 

I am not saying this is possible.