LOL... Do you get the sense that you and I talk past each other a LOT?
Why don't we start by defining supernatural?
I always understood it as 'unbound by and capable of superseding natural law.'
LOL. I would say your definition is a decent start if we are to entertain the concept. But it leads to a circular reference.
Then I would point out that natural laws are not so much bounds and limits, as they are descriptions. If I put a fence around 640 acres, I have created a boundary. Natural laws are more like a river. I use the 'natural' phenomena to describe the limit that exists. My neighbor can jump the fence, but they cannot ford the river.
If something could supersede a natural law, then it wouldn't be a natural law. If we observe phenomena A to violate natural law B, then there are 2 possibilities;
A is not natural, or
B is not a natural law (or is out of context or incomplete).
If I accept A is not natural, then I am assuming 1) that my knowledge of nature is complete (i.e. there is no need to rethink my understanding of the natural law) and 2) even though my knowledge of nature is complete I have something I can't explain. Seems a bit lazy.
If I accept B is not a natural law then I am assuming that I have more to learn about nature.
NOW
Do we agree that sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch are limited to natural phenomena? Even 100 years ago it may have been very easy to lack any natural understanding of the senses. But we know what light and sound waves are. We know how smell, taste, and touch work. There is no evidence that anything other than natural phenomena can be sensed. Numerous claims to the contrary have without exception been debunked or failed any documentable repeatability.
Do we agree that anything that affects the human individual, species, or condition, has an effect. Any effect must be observable, measurable even, or it's not an effect by definition. Anything that cannot be measured, observed, or sensed in some way, has no affect.
NOW
When considering any unexplained observation, we can ascribe X = any part that is understood and (Y+Z) any part that is not understood; where Y is any part that may be attributed to a natural explaination and Z is any part that may be attributed to a supernatural explaination.
So the explanation E, is = X + (Y+Z)
There is not a single E where Z cannot be set to 0 by assuming I have more to learn;
There is not a single E where Z is anything other than 0 unless I assume my knowledge of nature is complete, yet IDKWTF is going on
I.e. an appeal to supernatural requires both unlimited arrogance in my own knowledge AND resignation to my own ignorance.
Now just because Z = 0 in any E does not mean there is no supernatural. But it does mean that IFF there is a supernature it is meaningless in the natural world.
Thanks for the opportunity to sort out some of my recent thoughts.