Argument from Reason?

[robvalue]

Nah, thanks for the warning, I won't waste my brain cell on it!

Yeah, supernatural means pretty much whatever people want it to mean. I think of it as anything that we (or anything natural) can never affect or measure in any way, no matter what happens. It's like another kind of existence overlaying our own which can act on us, but we can never act on it. Other methodological naturalists may view it differently, I don't know. It's just "whatever science can never reach" I suppose, however you want to hide it.

Of course, this may well be nothing at all. I have no reason to think any such thing exists. But I don't feel it necessary to declare that the set is empty.

If someone wants to posit its existence, its up to them to properly define what they are talking about. So really, I don't need a definition as I'd never be making a case that involves it. It's just kind of a fallback definition. Whatever your definition of supernatural, as long as its internally consistent, I'm not going to claim it doesn't exist. I have no need to.

The obvious mistake is to appeal to the limits of our current understanding; as this can render something supernatural today and natural tomorrow. Makes no sense to me.

I've found that debate doesn't tend to get past the definition stage when precise meanings are requested, often (I suspect) because the person defending such ideas is referring entirely to their imagination for reference.