Saying that the supernatural is anything that violates the laws of nature would be necessary but not sufficient, in my view. I don't consider it sufficient because a skeptic can simply call any supposed supernatural discovery as being a previously unknown natural phenomenon instead of being a violation of a law.

For Debate:
Is the above view a valid point?

If not, what criteria would you use to distinguish the natural from the supernatural?

Well, I'm not an expert in anything (yet), but I have had a lot of discussions with skeptics of the supernatural. I don't think it's reasonable for some to claim that there is no evidence for the supernatural, if there is no way to identify it in the first place. The problem with not knowing how to identify the supernatural is that it's very possible that we have evidence for it but we may not realize it. Perhaps in studying consciousness, we may be inadvertently obtaining evidence for a nonphysical existence.
  • Like
Reactions: notsuretobehonest