I’m saying your initial question is problematic and a bit silly if we’re having such a hard time categorizing things between natural and supernatural. It isn’t that weird a place to start a discussion. I’m in the camp of people who thinks 1) the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, I.e. you, and 2) it’s difficult to discuss whether a thing exists if you cannot first define the thing.
No I just come from a STEM background where we have a bit of a rigorous process for concluding that something is true. You’re starting with the conclusion and saying everybody else is stupid and difficult who points out the flaws in your logic.
Proofs start from axioms, which the ‘laws of nature’ as defined by you, are not. I don’t know what you mean, which is why I asked. You’re only revealing your own lack of critical thought here, this isn’t a gotcha like you think it is.
This is the way.