I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

If you want to convince anyone that this statement has any merit, you'll have to address the examples I did present and explain how they have no use when applied in the context I clearly state.

Yes, exactly. Well, that would entirely depend upon whether or not it's man-made without breaking a law of nature, developed on it's own without human intervention, or if someone broke a law of nature while creating it. Which natural processes does it certainly go against?
If someone put it together... then yes, of course it does, that would be human intervention.
But if it came about on it's own (flowers just happen to be growing in an area)... then no, it doesn't. Is the temperature controlled by human intervention and the technology of a thermostat?
If so, then the environment would be artificial. Are they forced by means of human intervention while not breaking any laws of nature?
If so, then the blooms are being artificially forced.Are they forced by means of human intervention while breaking a law of nature?
If so, then the blooms are being supernaturally forced. Of course. Science is all about the details. Determine the details and you'll find your answers. Again, it depends:Did the lakes of wine come about all on their own with no human intervention?
(Say, a strange new event that didn't require intelligent intervention in any way that we didn't know about before)
If so, then the lakes of wine would be natural.Did the lakes of wine come about by human intervention but no laws of nature were broken?
(Say, men created a dam, drained the water from the resulting lake and then filled the lake up with wine)
If so, then the lakes of wine would be artificial.Did the lakes of wine come about by human intervention and a law of nature was broken?
(Say, a wizard destoryed all the water matter and created all the wine matter)
If so, then the lakes of wine would be supernatural.It's not intended to be tricky or difficult. Again, it depends.Does the limb regrowth occur without human intervention?
Then natural.Does the limb regrowth require human intervention but doesn't break any natural laws (ex. the creation/destruction of matter)?
Then artificial.Does the limb regrowth require human intervention but does break natural laws (ex. the creation/destruction of matter)?
Then supernatural.Hopefully the template is starting to show itself. Here you go:

• Natural: The state of reality when left alone by human intervention. Example: A flower grown from the ground.
  ​
• Artificial: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through natural processes to resemble a naturally occuring object. Example: A felt flower is called an artificial flower.
  ​
• Supernatural: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through a method that goes against natural processes.
  Example: Creating matter to make a biological flower.
  

How to distinguish natural: No intelligent intervention of any kind.
How to distinguish artificial: Intelligent intervention, but no laws of nature were broken.
How to distinguish supernatural: Intelligent intervention, and at least one law of nature was broken. That is only true if you refuse to acknowledge the clear, english, straight-forward, reasonable context I've provided.

It is impossible to equivocate when I'm supplying the definitions and sticking to them. It should be clear to everyone who replies to me that I'm using the definitions that I post and say that I'm using.How many times would you like me to admit that if we use a definition of "natural" that reduces to "occurs in the universe" then, obviously, something that is supernatural cannot occur in the universe... otherwise, it would be natural?(That counts as one more... I think I'm up to 8 times now...)Of course if we don't adjust that definition, then there's nothing to talk about. I suppose we can all say "yay for tautologies!"
If, however, we do want to show a distinction that can be made between supernatural and natural... then the definition I've provided do exactly that.Decide what you're looking for, then attempt to make comments within the right context. It's less confusing for everyone. It most certainly is, when I clearly lay out that this is exactly what I'm doing and why...
To claim otherwise is simply immature.

It seems to me that we're talking about questions like the following:Can the supernatural be tested?
Is it possible to know if the supernatural exists?
Can science study the supernatural?All of these questions have one thing in common. They imply (possibly only hypothetically) that the supernatural is something that has the possibility to occur in the universe.There is a definition of "natural" that can be reduced to "occurs in the universe."
When using this definition, the obvious answer to all the above supernatural questions is "No" simply by definition. No thought required.Anyone attempting to discuss these supernatural questions in any way and insisting on using this "occurs in the universe" definition of "natural" in a natural vs. supernatural sense is being ignorant at best and trolling at worst.The fact that the very nature of these questions imply that the supernatural may be something that occurs should be the hint (to the honest and reasonable participant) that there must be some context of "natural" being used that simply does not rule out any discussion of the supernatural by definition. Obviously, if such a definition of "natural" was used... then there's no point in even asking the questions in the first place.The only definition of the world "natural" that makes sense when asking these sorts of questions is the one I've provided:

• Natural: The state of reality when left alone by human intervention (or intervention from any other "intelligent being). Example: A flower grown from the ground.
  

If you do not agree... why do you possibly think any definition of natural reducing to "occurs in the universe" should be used in the discussion other than the fact that it rules out the supernatural simply by definition? What other information does this definition bring to the discussion? Why would think that ruling something out "by definition" should be considered an intelligent response in this case?The answer of "it's popular" or "it's normal" doesn't count. That just means you're being ignorant.
The use of the word "natural" in the sense that it's non-man-made is just as popular and normal. Probably even more so.

No, I don't.What you're failing to take into consideration is that our current definitions on the philosophy of science are based on the universe we currently live in.What we're discussing, are hypothetical situations that are not based on the universe we currently live in.It's like asking "why can't women play in the NHL?"
And you keep insisting that only men play in the NHL.Yes... that's the way things are, but the question doesn't concern the way things are... it concerns a hypothetical situation that heavily implies "what if things are different from the way we currently think of them?"

Your only point was that the definition of 'natural' when discussing science should be the definition that reduces down to "occurs in this universe."That's what I addressed.But it's okay, if you have another point you'd like me to address all you have to do is specify it.Again, insisting that the word "natural" must be defined as "occurs in the universe" when discussing these questions is like insisting a player in the NHL must be defined as a man when discussing whether or not women should play.That's not the issue.The issue is what if things were different?What if the laws of nature were broken all the time, everyday?
Then, obviously, we would not have a philosophy of science idea that includes "the laws of nature" not being broken.There wouldn't be any "laws of nature" because nothing would be consistent.There would be the "laws of leaving stuff alone, with no intervention from intelligent beings" (our current laws of nature) and "the way things happen whenever someone decides to intervene and do whatever they want" (what we would call 'magic').In a world where this is going on... it's perfectly reasonable to call the first of those things "natural" and the second one "supernatural" as that's what the words mean today anyway.The point is, if things were different as described by the hypothetical situations being put forward... then the definition of "natural" meaning "occurs in the universe" wouldn't exist at all. And it no longer makes sense to insist on this definition.Just like if women actually did play in the NHL... then all NHL players wouldn't be men. And it would no longer make sense to insist on that definition.The definition you're sticking to only makes sense if you refuse to consider the implications of the discussion.
If you refuse to consider the implications of the discussion... why are you participating in the discussion?Not wanting to discuss these things can make sense on it's own.
But not wanting to discuss these things, but continuing to insist that they must be discussed your way? Every post you make is a confusing oxymoron.