What do we mean when we say that something is supernatural? Wikipedia defines it as "is that which is not subject to the laws of physics or, more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature."<sup>[[Supernatural#References |1]]</sup> So there are two options. The first is something which breaks the laws of physics and the second is something which exists above or beyond nature.
Let us consider the first possibility: something which breaks the laws of physics. What are the laws of physics that might be broken? Consider Newton's second law, acceleration equals force divided by mass. But Einstein's Special Relativity showed that in actual fact for an object traveling .7 times the speed of light relative to the observer, acceleration equal to only about .7 of the force divided by mass. Yet no one suggests that because this is a breach of Newton's second law that such an object is by definition supernatural. Why is this not the case? Instead, we stopped calling Newton's second law an accurate law and replaced it with a slightly different law that included an expression called tau in the equation. Is there something which once discovered to be breaking the laws of physics would not cause us to change the laws of physics? It is the very nature of physics, that if something is discovered through observation to be breaking the laws of physics, the laws of physics are then revised. So nothing can break the laws of physics, only cause us to amend them.
Let us consider an example. God is often called supernatural because he can create miracles which break the laws of physics. Atheist physicists give no credence to the claim that these miracles exist because they claim there is insufficient proof for their existence. But, let us imagine that their existence were proven through repeatable experiments with controls, all of the normal scientific niceties that physics demands. Would they then be considered supernatural effects? The answer is most definitely not. The laws of physics would then be amended to account for miracles. Physicists would experiment with miracles until they understood as much as they could about them, until their nature was described and quantified as much as possible. Then miracles would no longer be considered to be a breach of the laws of physics. Instead, new expressions would be introduced into the equations which describe the laws of physics such that miracles were part of the laws of physics.
But God is an excellent example because he is often considered supernatural based on the other half of the definition, that he exists above or beyond nature. So let us consider what is this nature which he is said to exist above or beyond. Once again we can ask Wikipedia for a definition, "Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural, physical, or material world or universe." <sup>[[Supernatural#References |2]]</sup>. So we have four choices. The first is the Natural world, but that is just defining Nature in terms of its own root. It is equivalent to saying that Chocolate can be defined as that which is chocolaty. So we can skip that part of the definition as uselessly circular. The physical world is the second choice. This choice if searched in Wikipedia redirects to the article "Universe" and so is pretty much synonymous with the fourth choice. The third choice is the Material world. Again this one redirects back to 'Nature' and so we have a quick and unhelpful circle. So let us assume that the Universe is what is being talked about here. We know what the universe is, don't we?
The universe is the Earth and everything in the sky. It is all the planets, stars, galaxies, space, time, the Cosmic Background Radiation. It is everything that exists. Wikipedia helpfully says that "The Universe is the totality of existence." <sup>[[Supernatural#References |3]]</sup> So if something was discovered to exist outside of the universe then it would be supernatural. But where could we look to find something that exists outside of the universe? If we found something that we could prove exists because it had effects inside the universe but which we could prove did not exist inside the universe then what would be the response of science? The response of science would be to say that the universe extends in a way that was not previously understood. The universe is science's word for everything that exists. If something is found to exist that is outside of what we currently understand as the bounds of the universe, then we have not discovered something that exists outside the universe, we have discovered that the universe extends beyond what we had thought were its bounds.
For example, at one time our best science was that the observable stars with the best telescopes at the time ranged out to some several thousands of light years and that was believed to be the extend of the universe. The universe was described by scientists as a cloud of stars. Then Edwin Hubble discovered galaxies and we understood that the universe was much bigger. Each galaxy was a cloud of stars orbiting a common barycentre and the universe was a cloud of galaxies. We did not say that galaxies were supernatural. We just recognized that the universe was bigger than we previously thought.
But God is different isn't he? He isn't further away than the Galaxies. He is right here and everywhere and outside the universe poking in, all three at once. So if something is beyond the universe in a way that is not about physical distance but about something stranger and more ethereal, then does that make it supernatural? Consider string theory. In string theory, there are about 7 extra dimensions that are all rolled up tight. They are right here and everywhere and outside of the normal 4 dimensional universe. The concept sounds rather similar to God. But if string theory is proven and we come to know that there are 7 or 8 extra dimensions that are all rolled up tight and here and everywhere and outside of the universe at the same time, will we call them supernatural? Again the answer is most definitely not. Again, we will have discovered that the universe extends beyond its currently understood bounds but in 14 or 16 directions that we can hardly imagine. (A dimension is a pair of opposite directions so 7 or 8 dimensions is 14 or 16 directions)
Likewise, if we discover that God exists and we prove it using repeatable experiments with controls and all of the niceties demanded by physics, and if we indeed prove that God exists beyond the currently understood bounds of the universe in any way, then we will not have discovered a supernatural god but instead we will have discovered that the universe extends beyond its own currently understood bounds and that God is entirely inside it, by definition. This is so, because, if god exists then he is part of the set of all that exists and so whatever bounds can be placed on his existence will be at best the newly understood bounds of the universe. And if he exists without bounds then we will have come to understand that the universe is boundless or infinite.
Now I have heard the argument that "God does not in the ultimate sense exist; he is not a thing; he is not an object." This is not the argument of an atheist. The person making the argument is not saying that God does not exist. He is saying that God is not an object. He is not a set of events in space time. This changes nothing. If physics can accept describing reality in terms of 11 dimensions, then why would anyone expect that it would not accept describing something that is other than a set of events in space time? Either God exists or he doesn't. If he exists he is part of the totality of all that exists. If he can be proven to exist by experimentation, then he will be proven to exist because we can observe some effect of him. If we can observe some effect of him then we can quantify those observations and begin to understand his nature through those observations. If we cannot observe him then Occam's razor forbids us to believe he exists or that he has any particular nature.
So let us return to what we mean when we say that something is supernatural. It is obvious we are not talking about the object or entity that is being described. If God exists then he is part of the universe and he is, thus, entirely natural. If God does not exist then he is not supernatural, he is non-existent. When we say that something is supernatural, we are saying more about the person claiming its existence than about the object itself. If someone says that God is supernatural, then they could be saying that God does not exist (is outside of the totality of that which exists) which is what most atheists mean when they say that something is supernatural. Alternatively, they could be saying that he exists in another realm which is not currently described by physics but which can be observed. In a sense this description fits the back of my basement closet. It can be observed. But it has never been examined by modern physics. There are no peer reviewed journal articles published about the nature of the back of my basement closet. If God exists in a realm which is observable but which has not been described by physics then he exists in a realm which has not been described by physics yet. It may never be described by physics just as I doubt that any physicist will ever describe the nature of my basement closet. But that does not say anything about the realm in which he exists. It just says something about humanity and how much we have systematically observed.
A third alternative is that they are saying that God exists in a realm which cannot be observed. If that is the case, then they have no observations upon which to base a description of this realm. It is unavoidable then that they are, in one sense or another, just making things up. Again this says more about the person who believes in the existence of the thing than the thing itself. The thing may or may not exist (it has not been observed) but the person believes in its existence never-the-less. In this case, the person who claims that something is supernatural is really describing themselves as someone who believes in the something without evidence.
Again, I have heard the argument that there is a noetic sense. This is a sense which allows one to know the existence of God without observation. However, to the degree that it allows one to know the existence of something, it is a sense through which one can observe. Therefore, it would not allow someone to know the existence of God without observation but instead would simply be a sense through which God can be observed. More precisely it would be a sense through which the effect of God can be observed. This is just like any other sense. We talk about seeing a tree but in actual fact we detect the effect of the tree in the pattern of reflected photons which strike our retina. We don't directly observe the photons; instead we actually observe the patterns of neuron firings which occur in our visual cortex afterward. Observation is far removed from phenomenon and, to the extent which any noetic sense or faculty allows someone to determine the existence of God, it must logically be a way in which our minds are affected indirectly or directly by God. It is simply a sense and its use is observation.
==References==
1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural Supernatural | Wikipedia], accessed 2015-03-16<br/>
2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature Nature | Wikipedia], accessed 2015-03-16<br/>
3 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe Universe | Wikipedia], accessed 2015-03-16<br/>