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?
For Debate:
Is the above view a valid point?
If not, what criteria would you use to distinguish the natural from the supernatural?