Good evening mr Levesque,
slevesque writes:
anything that is outside of nature
slevesque writes:
By nature I mean our space-time universe, which is the only place where we can do science
I disagree with both these statements for a few subtle reasons. First off, I disagree with your definition of "nature". I'm inclined to consider everything that exists and can be studied to be a part of nature. This would include other universes, a multiverse, whatever. That way we will never have to redefine "nature" as the borders of our understanding expand into new territories.
If God (and I'm making that a big IF for our non-theistic friends here) has existed eternally (whatever that means in the absence of time), then God is the natural state of existence.
If God has ever been observed, and if there is a book that describes God and assigns various traits to Him, then to some extent He can be studied and understood. Which, as I see it, places Him within the natural realm.
This definition of reality makes "supernatural" an obsolete concept. Instead, we have the bits of nature that we understand, and the bits of nature that we may one day come to grips with.
Is there any useful reason to label something supernatural?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor