Atheism

Sorry but I'm going to call out what I see as some pretty blatant motte-and-bailey argumentation by the OP and their offense taken to people trying to nail down the definition of supernatural is illustrative.

They have their bailey, belief in things like the occult, ghosts, demons, etc, that are almost certainly bullshit. To the extent that they can be falsified, they have been. This is the typical definition of what people think when you say "supernatural" and people are right to answer "no" when asked if they believe in it.

But then you have OP falling back on their motte when this happens, taking a nebulous definition of supernatural and asking rhetorical philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown. The fallacy is that these questions do nothing to strengthen or refute the original argument about the supernatural.

Nobody is here to argue that nothing is unknown and even unknowable but that doesn't make the things that people typically call "supernatural" any less bullshit. Demons and ghosts are just not the kinds of things that are waiting around to surprise us. And shifting the conversation from your bailey to your motte to protect your feelings on the former is not a good way to have a friendly debate.

All that aside, if you are interested in expanding your understanding of the universe then I'd really encourage you to divert the effort you're putting into the "supernatural" into learning about the actual natural universe instead. Our universe really is fantastic on its own. There's plenty of interesting, wacky, and unknown things happening all around us that you can learn about without resorting to magic. If anything, magic is the boring answer imo.

I'm fully atheist, but I have seen ghosts in front of me, clear as day, while completely sober, during the daylight.

If something has observable properties, then it is part of nature, as we could observe it, model it, and include it into our scientific theories. If something has no observable properties, then it is not distinguishable from something that does not exist. Supernatural phenomena thus, tautologically, are not distinguishable from something that does not exist. Indeed, I would go as far as even saying the definition of nonexistence is to lack observable properties. That is why i se supernatural phenomena as a no-go. It either lacks observable properties, so it does not exist as a matter of definition, or it has observable properties, meaning it is just natural and not supernatural.

Slight nitpick, I don't "believe" there is no higher power. I don't believe in any of the claims people have made that a higher power exists. By default we don't believe in anything.

I'd recommend Manly P Halls book on "secret teachings". I think alot of "religion" is just philosophy + myth.

The only phenomenon that I take seriously as potentially supernatural, or connected to something we have no way of explaining is the experience of consciousness.

There are no supernatural phenomena. There are things that really happen (which are natural) and hallucinations and delusions (which also arise naturally). That's all. Most of the woo I see is either the result of deliberate deception or stupidly implausible interpretation.

I don't think it makes sense as a term. If it occurs in the real world, has real impacts on it, but is hard to understand that doesn't mean it is supernatural, just not understood. The double slit experiment is not supernatural, just hard to understand. Things can happen in coincidental ways, but something had to happen so even if very coincidental it can be natural. What would it mean to be supernatural? I mean, really, some small part of the universe behaving badly for a moment for a reason we don't understand is not magic, it is just ignorance on our part. So I am open to phenomena, they happen, but a supernatural explanation could never be justified in my view. Just because I can't think of why something happens doesn't make it magic, it could far more easily be something we have seen time and again, my own ignorance.

"Natural" simply means "real". Any phenomena that does exist, known or not, is by definition natural.

Seconding custard_swallower. Strict naturalism. I see no reason to believe in any supernatural claim of any kind.

Relatively recently I had a new hypothesis for some of the feelings people attribute to hauntings; bad vibes. I know someone who smokes indoors in their home. Before I had purged supernatural beliefs of all kinds from my worldview I thought there was some kind of curse or haunting wrong with the place. No, it's the ill effects of third-hand smoke.

Belief in non-theistic supernatural phenomena appears to be a crutch for theistic supernatural belief; it gives a convenient explanation for something so that you don't exercise your rational faculties to find the real reason and then have the kind of experience that can contribute to unraveling god-beliefs.

Evidence?

I'll believe anything you tell me, including gods and magic, as long as you can present evidence appropriate to your claim. Anyone who wants me to believe what they're saying about anything divine or supernatural had better be able to back it up, or else I'm going to laugh in their face.

I try to keep my thinking in line with scientific materialism. That also means things I believe need to be falsifiable, which means, I don't entirely believe them. There there always needs to be a bit of a hole or escape hatch in any truth to prevent it from becoming dogma.

I don't "believe" what I'm about to say, but it's something that has come up for me many times under psychedelics, which is the concept of a 'consciousness first' manifestation of reality. It's the closest thing I have to a spiritual or supernatural belief, and it's not really a belief because I don't believe it, but I do entertain the idea from time to time. The basic argument is that we've got the order of operations backwards, that the universe doesn't manifest consciousness through emergent properties, but rather that consciousness manifests universe concepts and scenarios that end up being plausible. This concepts extends the concept of consciousness to all matter and energy as well, because it all ends up being one and the same. I think of it as an extension of some Taoist thinking around wei wu wei where, because one is aught to find what they are looking for, if we can step back and stop dictating what we think/demand reality to be, reality may actually be much more fluid if we aren't so dogmatic in our thinking about it.

Anyways, I don't really believe any of that. But I think it would make for good science fiction, although it's already been done extremely well by Le Guin in her novella The Lathe of Heaven.

I think there may be some scientific explanation for a variety of things that are attributed to the supernatural; and not necessarily just mundane things like knocks and creaks in your house, paradolia causing images of faces in image noise and shit like that. For example, with how places that have unusual geomagnetic activity tend to also have higher than average ghost sightings, I think some people may just be extra sensitive to magnetic fields which causes them to hallucinate.

So many myths and monsters are basically caused by misunderstandings, not seeing something clearly enough to identify it, or even exaggerating a story that's been passed down verbally over a long time. Not to mention things caused by mental illness in times before advanced medicine and psychology. Many alien abduction stories and succubus sightings are almost certainly the result of hallucinations induced by sleep paralysis.

My thoughts on supernatural phenomena?

Name one.

I have experienced weird things and I think it is something that is an explainable natural phenomena that humans attribute to the supernatural in their ignorance.

Like the "ominous feeling" of a basement being stuff like radon or unshielded wiring, things that are explainable without the supernatural.

We are overzealous pattern recognition machines.

The proto-hominids who saw a tiger in the bush when there wasn't one had a higher chance of passing on their genes than the ones who didn't see a tiger when there was one.

And now their descendants see tigers in the stars.

If LLMs have taught us anything about pattern recognition machines it's that when they don't find a pattern to match they don't say they have no matches... they just pull a somewhat fitting match off their arse, or an outright random one. They hallucinate.

And that's even before we get to our actual minds. We've got pattern recognition machinery in our retinas. What reaches our brain is already highly processed (to make tigers easier to spot), and then it gets into the visual processing part of the brain, which uses sophisticated autocompletion using previously stored patterns to fill in the blanks and highlight anything remotely interesting... often including things that aren't there (see optical illusions, for instance). That's what we "see", and then we get to make up stuff based on that (and the same probably applies to our other senses, too).

Add to that that we're notoriously bad at recognising randomness (or lack thereof). A coin falls heads up four times in a row and we suspect shenanigans, as if it wasn't as likely or unlikely as any other pattern.

We see some craters that look like a smiley face (pattern recognition strikes again) on Mars and we think it's a fake picture (it's 2024, after all), or a Watchmen reference. And when we learn it's actually real our hair stands up. We get goosebumps. It can't be natural. Must be super natural. Aliens. Gods. Ancient civilizations. All while we ignore the thousands of craters that don't look like a smiley face.

But, hey, at least we're not getting eaten by hidden tigers, so win some lose some, I guess.

You know how various fantasy and sci-fi settings will say something like, "____ uses both science and magic," when describing how the world works? That ususally makes no sense. If magic has laws consistent enough to be used in machinery, it is just another branch of science. But with that out of the way, is that the only thing magic can be?

If magic was not just another type of science, it would have to supercede the natural world. Imagine a fantasy world that has gods who bestow power to their acolytes. Rather than using a natural process that could be recreated by mortals, the gods could actually break physical laws or even write new ones on a whim. In this world, magic isn't bound by a naturalistic worldview since it can change based on what a free-thinking entity chooses at any given moment.

That was a roundabout way of saying, "I don't think it matters." If the supernatural (magic) is knowable, we do not currently know it. If it turned out to be real, we may not even have a way of meaningfully interacting with it.