If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

Hi Salesman,

Thanks for providing a definition...

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Agree or disagree are there are many phenomena currently beyond scientific understanding true?

Agree.

If so until such time as scientists understand such phenomena they are supernatural correct?

No. Has it occurred to you that if your conclusion is stupid, the process you used to reach it might be stupid as well? Though I prefer 'stupidity' as an explanation over 'cupidity', since you inserted the idea that it's what science currently does not understand that is supernatural, it's hard to see how you can be unaware of the dishonesty in which you're engaging.

If the universe was caused to exist that cause couldn't be the very laws of nature that were caused to exist.

The universe is a specific space time continuum. That natural laws of the meta-universe in which it arose may be identical or similar to the natural laws of the universe can't be ruled out. After all, you've recognized that it is hypothetically possible to create a universe by artifical means. It's also hypothetically possible for our universe to generate other universes by natural means. It could be universes like ours all the way out.

If it sprang into existence out of nothing uncaused again that would be out of scope for scientists to explain.

Hardly. There's a cosmological origin scenario that posits that and explains it quite nicely. Unless you're talking about the sort of 'philosophical nothingness' which we have no reason to even think is possible.

Therefore by this definition the existence of the universe is a phenomena beyond scientific explanation and can't be understood by an appeal to the laws of nature.

To fit the definition as it was given to you before you changed it by adding the idea that only current understanding was meant, it would have to be beyond even hypothetical scientific understanding.

My personal definition (for what its worth) is the supernatural is what can't possibly happen unless it turns out it can happen and then it becomes 'natural'.

In other words, the supernatural is the natural that has not been understood as yet. And for some reason, you're acting like you think that's what Salesman meant as well.

For example two hundred years ago, the idea I could speak to someone in Europe in live time would be a supernatural feat to them. Now since we can do it, its perfectly natural.

So in your mind, things that are actually supernatural become actually natural once they're understood, rather than them having been misunderstood nature all along. Of what use is your version as a definition?

Wouldn't mindless forces that poof a universe into existence be a good example also?

If there weren't plenty of examples of mindless forces leading to complexity, and especially of the mindless (but possessed of some brute and wasteful intelligence in the form of an algorithm) process of evolution which led to us, then you might have a point about positing mindless forces as no more supported than proposing a disembodied mind that created the universe. You speak of mindless forces producing intellligence as though the idea is ridiculous when it's far from it. All the available evidence points to it.

Have scientists reached an understanding of how the human mind exists?

They've certainly reached an understanding of from where it comes.

If we really are autonomous free will agents who can volitionally do things does that fall under the purview of the laws of nature?

How could we not? Of what law of nature do you think you're in violation?

What law does that follow under?

High intelligence and self-awareness having value for reproductive success in humans.