The word 'supernatural' is ill-defined: if something exists in the real world, then it is natural by definition.

Yeah, just like the word 'metaphysics' is ill-defined. If something exists in the real world, then it is physical by definition.

Or to be even more snarky but at least more explanatory: I doubt that 'exists', 'physical', 'meta-', 'super-' or 'natural' are sufficiently well-defined in these contexts for your accusation of ill-definition to hold any weight. If I try to interpret what you're saying in roughly the same manner in which it seems to me that you're interpreting what most folk mean by 'supernatural', except instead of being uncharitable in the direction of being snobbishly literal I reverse it and be uncharitable in the direction of not paying attention to your explicit message, it looks something like this: "People who use the word 'supernatural' tend to be wrong in obvious ways and I like to point this out in a mildly intellectual fashion so that I can feel superior to them; also since I just denounced the enemy tribe you should like me more". But that would be no more accurate a characterization of what you meant, than your characterization of what is typically meant by 'supernatural', and nobody on either side would learn anything from such analysis.

(This comment is not really a reply to User:bogus so much as an expression of annoyance at certain traditional rationalist memes. Sorry you got caught in the crossfire, User:bogus.)