Wouldn't a framework of executable steps to produce a predictable outcome to prove a theory by definition render something NOT supernatural? Because the process you describe is called science...

I think a lot of religions make testable predictions, its just that when you test them they don't actually happen.

@Kaia, such as?

Who says anyone's buttons are being pushed? If one can create the process by which something happens then it isn't supernatural! Look up the definition of the word.

@MichaelHall See the number of downvotes =)

The downvotes are for the reason I pointed out. It's like asking if by showing you a card trick and explaining exactly how to perform it I can prove that it's actually magic.

Swinburne elaborated a testing strategy for theism in Bayesian terms. However, his critics are many and skeptical, see e.g. Philipse, Swinburne's apologetic strategy for theism evaluated, who concludes that "theism cannot be an empirically testable theory" due to the admittedly analogical nature of attributing intentions and actions to God, see also his Predictive Power of Theism.

@MichaelHall See the edit.

Define what you mean by "beyond the laws of nature" and the answer will follow. But you need to define this in your question if you want this to be answerable.

I've upvoted bc it's a good question. But supernaturalism is testable. Which is why methodological naturalism rejects its conclusions. There is no evidence for its claims in terms having an effect on natural phenomena.

"Theism or supernaturalism" = Christianity. It is almost exclusively a Christian presumption that religiosity = commitment to the supernatural. By contrast a Muslim faces Mecca for prayers, a Hindu would like to die in Benares, a Jew sings next year in Jerusalem. Only the Christian looks up to heaven. So it may be better to frame the question in terms of "Christian theism" or simply Christianity

@Rushi Doesn't this article completely contradict what you just said? britannica.com/topic/supernaturalism

Read the second paragraph itself: "A distinction that is NOT found in..."

@Rushi Read the third and fourth paragraphs =)

Last para: The secularization of modern Western civilization has created a gulf between the natural and the supernatural because of modern conceptions of the physical universe as being controlled by scientifically knowable and predictable laws and as existing apart from the influence or control of God. Hence, the world becomes a profane reality that is wholly isolated from both the sacred and the supernatural. Combine that with Tom Holland who shows in Dominion that all of modern western civilization, in particular the secular ideal is Christian in origin. Ie secular = 20 century Christian

@Rushi So you completely ignored all the parts in the article explaining how the supernatural is accepted in multiple religions other than Christianity, which effectively rebuts what you claimed 5 comments above. Third paragraph: "Paradoxically, the most radical division between the natural and the supernatural is established by those forms of religion that posit a final or ultimate coincidence between the natural and the supernatural, or the sacred and the profane. This is true both in Indian mystical religion and in Near Eastern and Western eschatological religions..."

Its a question of framing. If you insist on bending your frame to include things ouside, shrug.. I'm signing off. But in case youre really asking: See Lakoff Dont think of an elephant. Most religions are simply not simply about faith, God, supernatural in the Christian sense. Christianity is an exception. Because the west has been dominant for ½ millennium, the default frame is Christian

Religions are supported by evidences. And in most cases contradicted as well. The problem of evil is a very well known test case. Use of the term “supernatural” which has both ontological and epistemological usages poisoned the well by introducing unhelpful equivocation into the question. Religions are ontologically supernatural but in most cases epistemically natural. They should also not be compared to science but to worldviews. The equivalent of a religion is a philosophy, which is also spotty in the cleanliness of its testability.

@Dcleve Epistemic natural, ontic supernatural... V neat! Except that I don't believe the supernatural as an ontic category is even barely self consistent. In fact I think I could find you making some statement to that effect if I searched 😁

@Rishi -- I consider the epistemic usage of supernatural to be the only useful one. For ontic purposes, I use "spiritual".

@Dcleve Yeah I could see you why you would like "spiritual". For myself I hover between dualism and non-dualism and so "spiritual" tends to make one ½ of the world "other worldly" and therefore less real than the other ½

Seeing the world as one block of reality with one view the spiritual and the other the material avoids such a split. a la Spinoza, Vedanta etc

@Dcleve Hi Dcleve. I retracted (deleted) my answer. It wasn't worthy. But that may make your comments non-visible. If so, sorry. I hope you understand and do not mind. I left you a comment in the chat on the now-deleted question, saying this same thing, but am unsure if it will be visible to you. Cheers. A. Also, if you did wish to pick a piece of evidence for me to check out... check it out I will.

I think this all depends on what the questioner means by "beyond the laws of nature"

@Rusi -- Popper used the neutral "world 2". A lot of idealists just use "mind".