I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

Yes, exactly. Well, that would entirely depend upon whether or not it's man-made without breaking a law of nature, developed on it's own without human intervention, or if someone broke a law of nature while creating it. Which natural processes does it certainly go against?
If someone put it together... then yes, of course it does, that would be human intervention.
But if it came about on it's own (flowers just happen to be growing in an area)... then no, it doesn't. Is the temperature controlled by human intervention and the technology of a thermostat?
If so, then the environment would be artificial. Are they forced by means of human intervention while not breaking any laws of nature?
If so, then the blooms are being artificially forced.Are they forced by means of human intervention while breaking a law of nature?
If so, then the blooms are being supernaturally forced. Of course. Science is all about the details. Determine the details and you'll find your answers. Again, it depends:Did the lakes of wine come about all on their own with no human intervention?
(Say, a strange new event that didn't require intelligent intervention in any way that we didn't know about before)
If so, then the lakes of wine would be natural.Did the lakes of wine come about by human intervention but no laws of nature were broken?
(Say, men created a dam, drained the water from the resulting lake and then filled the lake up with wine)
If so, then the lakes of wine would be artificial.Did the lakes of wine come about by human intervention and a law of nature was broken?
(Say, a wizard destoryed all the water matter and created all the wine matter)
If so, then the lakes of wine would be supernatural.It's not intended to be tricky or difficult. Again, it depends.Does the limb regrowth occur without human intervention?
Then natural.Does the limb regrowth require human intervention but doesn't break any natural laws (ex. the creation/destruction of matter)?
Then artificial.Does the limb regrowth require human intervention but does break natural laws (ex. the creation/destruction of matter)?
Then supernatural.Hopefully the template is starting to show itself. Here you go:

• Natural: The state of reality when left alone by human intervention. Example: A flower grown from the ground.
  ​
• Artificial: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through natural processes to resemble a naturally occuring object. Example: A felt flower is called an artificial flower.
  ​
• Supernatural: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through a method that goes against natural processes.
  Example: Creating matter to make a biological flower.
  

How to distinguish natural: No intelligent intervention of any kind.
How to distinguish artificial: Intelligent intervention, but no laws of nature were broken.
How to distinguish supernatural: Intelligent intervention, and at least one law of nature was broken. That is only true if you refuse to acknowledge the clear, english, straight-forward, reasonable context I've provided.

Not only do I refuse to acknowledge "the clear, english, straight-forward, reasonable context I've provide", I fart in your general direction.Edited by jar, : kinda fix punctuation.

I didn't ask about testing. I asked about distinguishing. How are these methods different than the methods used for natural phenomena?What makes communicating with GOD different than communicating with Kubo the jungle savage?And, again, just what is a supernatural hypothesis?

You're just equivocating again.It is clear to everyone else what is meant by "natural" in this discussion."Supernatural" is not used in the same context as "artificial".

A miracle? Sure. But, supernatural?So was it a supernatural god or a natural advanced alien with a natural medical tricorder that had a natural regenerate button?

Or a con.Miracle workers have been around for ever.

I assumed the occurrence was genuine in order to make the point.But, yes, charlatans are pervasive. You are right ... yet again.This is becoming a habit with you. You can stop now.

I see you've met jar.

Uhh ... I'm not sure if I have the wrong impression here or if you do.I meant that as a kinda sideways compliment to jar.

I took it as even bettern getting called to the front of the glass and getting to put a big green star beside my name.

Do you believe that GOD does nothing in your life currently? (Either by way of the Holy Spirit or by way of speaking through others?)I am assuming that you are going to ask "how" He does this....and "how" you would know.

.....and the difference is? Why make it more difficult than it has to be? This is your everyday human, 21st century healer bloke. There's no tricks, no alien technology; two real, fully functional human arms suddenly pop onto the shoulders of a previously armless man at the touch of the healer's hand. ( And a muttered prayer, obviously.)All fully witnessed and accredited by the James Randi foundation and 100 sceptics of your choosing. The miracle to be performed once a week until you can't think of anything else to test.

But logic tells us that belief should only come in when you do not need to make any more adjustments. The religious mind refuses to adjust the faulty premise.

What I believe is totally irrelevant in this case and yes, of course I would ask how I would know.

I would document what happened, what we could observe and put it in the unknown/unexplained folder.No evidence of the supernatural there.