But what I'd say there is, if a law of nature says something can't happen and it does (or says something must happen and it doesn't), it doesn't mean a supernatural miracle has occurred; it means the law was either wrong or insufficiently general. My suspicion is that people just say "natural" when they think they understand something and "supernatural" when they don't. I guess if one's view of the universe is that it's something like the Matrix with gods in place of aliens you could say that a natural event is one that initiates within the matrix code itself in accordance with its own programming and a supernatural event is one that is deliberately initiated by an outside alien typing commands on the keyboard. But even in that case, it would mean the human idea of the universe was too small, and there would be a bigger unity that encompassed the diversity of both the matrix and the world outside it that all events would fit into.
True, well, "supernatural" comes from the days when people thought that the aliens were God and that other outside world was the ultimate reality of God or whatever. In
that case, we might presume that there is a kind of absolute barrier to our knowledge of God and heaven etc. Or, alternatively, if we are all a bunch of experiments in a giant virtual reality game, and if the aliens are the controllers, then intervention on their part to supervene the otherwise regular order might be considered "supernatural" IF it is somehow fundamentally impossible for human reason or human perception to come into contact with the origins of these interventions.
It seems to be rooted in what we can or cannot understand
in principle as human beings. Yes, I suppose reality is
one insofar as it is all reality. But how much of it can we access and understand? Many physicists tend to think that humans can potentially understand everything the universe has to offer. But why? There's no way my dog can understand Einstein's relativity, so why should we think humans can do it all?
We might even want to refrain from calling that part of reality which we can't understand "reality"... then again, how would we ever know what
not to call it when we can't even really get a grasp on what or "where" it is? You pointed out the skeptical tendency of science to "keep looking" when things don't make sense... perhaps this tendency of the scientific search points to the fact that there is no "reality" which we can't understand (i.e. if there is then, for all intents and purposes, it isn't reality). In other words, our practice of science tends to say "screw what we can't understand, it's a closed system and we're going for broke."
On the other hand, what DO we
really understand or know? Even our theories and "laws" are really just mental constructs designed to allow us to accurately predict the way things behave. It is questionable whether we can ever know or understand the
being of things themselves. At the most basic level, everything might be called "supernatural" insofar as its very existence or being is not understandable or accessible by us. And what about "natural"? We might reserve that for what we "know", which seems to be the ordinary, "surface-level" interactions and behaviors of things... miracles come from the bottom up for sure (being itself is a mystery), but I'm not sure about from the top down (raising from the dead seems suspect).