What definition of "natural" do you care to use?
How about "natural, PHYSICAL world"? Material.
Supernatural...outside of nature, not material.

What is the difference between "our thoughts are natural" and "our thoughts are supernatural"?

It would be absolutely absurd to build upon 'nothing', eh?

Because we have 'evidence' for the supernatural - our thoughts.

@disqus_5RaCi55XON:disqus : "so should we just accept any propositions put to us?"

Absolutely not. Only the sound ones.

But, we do have to agree to certain premises before we can even begin. Like,

That we speak or write philosophically, putting thoughts into words does not make that evidence "material."
Evidence from reason, using logic versus scientific method.

The necessary being. You start there.

and yet you can assert enough about it to build a massive church system upon it with elaborate traditions.... and highly specific lifestyle restrictions.

why do theists insist on splitting reality into two categories? if two, why not three? natural, supernatural, and hypernatural! where do you stop?

so should we just accept any propositions put to us?

you want to open the can of worms with a reducto ad absurdum, so be it.