Sorry to get back to you so late
"That's not supra natural."
Of course it is. You have no physical evidence of life self generating, therefore by your own definition it's supra natural.
Per your second argument concerning mattter: where to begin?
Let's try birth, childhood, a rose, a sunset my daughter, my father, synchronisity, God, pain, suffering, salvation.
None of these are matter, but somehow they matter. That's more than a pun. Much more.
It defines the limits of science. Fair enough.
Science cannot dictate the debate on life; it's simply not equipped to do so.
Thanks for your patience,
" Of course it is. You have no physical evidence of life self generating, therefore by your own definition it's supra natural."
No, it really isn't. Lack of evidence of how something functions is not evidence of it being supernatural. Before we understand ANY biochemical pathway, when we are at the stage that we are completely clueless, we don't say it's *supernatural*. We say we don't know...yet. It's the ID'ers who propose supernatural causes when there are gaps in our knowledge. Scientists are willing to say they don't know and stick to physical causes; even if it means a very incomplete hypothesis or theory. ID'ers have such restraint.
"It defines the limits of science. Fair enough.
Science cannot dictate the debate on life; it's simply not equipped to do so."
Not sure exactly what you mean by the debate on life. The debate on how life started? It certainly can have a lot to say on that. On what life is? Ditto. Meaning in life? It's pretty impotent there.
I don't deny that there may be more than just matter, I just know of no objective means to examine it.