Naturalism Assumes that Humans are Supernatural

A Deeper Meaning The supernatural according to everyone else's definition is that which cannot be explained with natural science, has no scientific evidence (according to naturalists), is often related to mythology, and is above or beyond the natural world. My opponent wants to strip this definition down to just that which cannot be explained with natural science. This fundamentally changes the definition of the word. He wants to do his in the name of "philosophy" and finding "deeper meaning." The problem is that when naturalists say they don't believe in the supernatural, they mean the common definition. I am one of these naturalists. My opponent wants to change that definition and then still claim that naturalists don't believe in it. This can only be valid if not believing in the common definition logically means you don't believe in by opponent's definition of the supernatural. But here is the problem. If we are using my opponent's definition of the supernatural, then every naturalist, atheist, etc believes in the supernatural. If the supernatural is that which is beyond the knowledge of humans, then we can all agree that this definition exists. However we atheists are still going to not believe in the supernatural if it is the common definition. If my opponent wants to change the definition of the supernatural and still claim that naturalists don't believe in this new one, then he needs to give some support. So lets look at his justifications for this "deeper" definition. "[naturalism] assumes man has the power to explain everything that could ever exist" This is not a justification of this "deeper definition". This is a repeat of a strawman definition of naturalism. We naturalists don't actually claim that the supernatural doesn't exist. We only claim that there is no evidence for the supernatural and therefore people should not believe in it and all frameworks of knowledge should not include the supernatural. We readily admit that there are some things that we cannot explain in nature (which I already defined) and maybe there are things above nature, but we can't confirm them. "humans can only ever define something as natural or supernatural through our ability to explain it" I have spent this entire debate providing the common definition of supernatural which is much deeper than just what we can't explain. As said before, the supernatural must also be beyond nature. If we find an element we can't explain, don't just assume that it is supernatural. Do some research and try to figure out if it is actually a part of nature. Scientific mystery does not equal supernatural. We should have learned from the Greeks on that one. "my opponent has offered no other way, by which in practice, humans can divide natural from supernatural." I have actually provided another way. I have provided a commonly used definition used by naturalists and religious people alike. In the last round, I showed how this definition is logically supported by our definition of nature. "He argues "No real scientist claims that scientific mysteries are supernatural by definition." but many theistic scientists believe scientific mysteries have a supernatural cause, as evidenced by the cosmological arguments for God." Even these scientists have arguments to try to show that these mysteries are from God. For example, the cosmological argument, tries to rule out all non-God explanations to show God made the universe. They don't argue supernatural from scientific ignorance alone. "He cites examples like thunder and light, but in the case of thunder he only fortifies my argument by showing that our definition is entirely dependent on our ability to explain." I have been arguing that these things are natural even if we can't explain them. That is because the supernatural has to be beyond nature and these things are a part of nature. I never claimed their classification depends on our knowledge.