That is not the sense in which any literate person from Thomas Aquinus on has used it.
It has always meant "transcending the powers or ordinary course of nature"
But if your "what will eventually discovered to have a natural explanation" is to be used, how will that erxplanation ever be found if science declines to look for it. In other words
Perhaps you can tell us how science can abandon empiricism and still be science.
Let me get this straight - you are claiming you speak for every literate person from Thomas Aquinus on? Wow!
It has always meant "transcending the powers or ordinary course of nature"
Which can also be phrased as "beyond our current understanding of the natural world". Transcending means " To pass beyond the limits of" - "powers or ordinary course" are fluff and your definition used the word nature while I used " understanding of the natural world" - unless you are trying to argue nature (or better put: man's understanding of nature) is a fixed unchanging commodity, there is no conflict between the definition you cited and the one I posted.
But if your "what will eventually discovered to have a natural explanation" is to be used, how will that erxplanation ever be found if science declines to look for it.
That really does not make any sense.
Perhaps you can tell us how science can abandon empiricism and still be science.
You are not making any sense. I never claimed science should abandon empiricism.