I read your two responses and find a little bit of a contradiction, which on basis of your taking me up on semantics I believe we can resolve.
If we assign everything we cannot sense with our physical senses to a non-physical realm, we have what we can refer to as a ‘spiritual’ or ‘supernatural’ realm. Whatever we actually call this realm, inclusive of ‘invisible’ or any other term is semantics ; what is important is there exists a realm we are unable to perceive with our physical senses.
While God is not nature, I agree it must be possible to perceive God in nature. Now consider the fact that the basic atoms that make up life are undetectable to our senses, yet produce our physical human bodies. In nature then we find evidence for, or a Corollary to God — a being undetectable to our physical senses, who transcends our bodies (atoms can exist outside of our bodies), yet is responsible for our physical senses.
Are atoms God? Naturally not. They must, however, contain some of the essence of God — enough to make us man, not enough to make us the Creator God.
I used the word supernatural because perhaps due to popularity of horror movies, more people are comfortable with that word than the alternate word, ‘spiritual’.
Do you not think it is supernatural for invisible atoms to coalesce into a physical visible body? Is it not supernatural that absent starting with those basic invisible atoms we are incapable of producing human bodies?
It is okay if you want to see it all as ‘natural’. That, however, in my opinion is semantics not substance, and on semantics it always is okay to agreeably disagree.