Open challenge regarding the supernatural

[Angrboda]

Normally, the supernatural is designated as that which can't be explained by natural means.  The unknown is that which hasn't been explained by natural means.  How do you differentiate between that which hasn't been explained, from that which cannot be explained, in the here and now.  In other words, what is the supernatural and how do you identify it, as opposed to simply "the unknown" ?

That's precisely why I think the term is entirely useless and is really just used to justify beliefs.  To prove that something is supernatural as opposed to unknown, one would have to identify the mechanisms behind that something.  Once you do that, does it not then become natural?

But then we would have to conclude that the set of things to which the word supernatural applies is the empty set. Is this not the same as saying there is no such thing as the supernatural? First of all, we have a definite semantic sense of what the term supernatural means. So if we conclude on the basis of your hypothetical that there are no supernatural events or forces, are we not begging the question prior to examining the phenomenon? I feel supernatural as a term has a sense, even if that sense is not satisfied by any real world object. So how do we bridge the gap between the sense of the word, and the fact that we have not examined all things to which the name supernatural might apply?