Nature and natural, by definition, cover anything that exists.  So finding these things and thinking them 'unnatural' is erroneous.  Also, you are presuming that what we would find could be created in the first place.  We could find a new substance (i.e. a new element) that wasn't made by anything sentient, but occurs in nature.

Also, all of this follows deterministic logic.  Read up on Quantum Mechanics.  Natural things may not be as deterministic as we'd like to think they are.

       Thats a reason to think there is a supernatural hand which was involved in the universe.    A Creator may very well be the reason that is the case.

No, it's reason to think humans don't understand everything.  It's reasonable to say 'we don't know' not 'god did it.'  Plus, we already call it quantum mechanics, no need to call it god.

You're using the word "natural" in two ways, and conflating terms.  "Natural" in one sense refers essentially to all that is.  Anything consisting of matter/energy/space/time is a natural phenomenon.  "Natural" in another sense means "normal for earth."  If we found a thing that appeared to be an alien gadget made out of unknown substances, it would be very "unnatural" for earth, but it would be "natural" with regard to the universe... to nature.

There's a third way in which you could be using "unnatural."  You might mean, "giving the appearance of being created for a purpose."  This gets into how we discern that things have been intelligently created.  When an intelligent thing makes something, it is creating a tool.  That is, he is reshaping his physical environment for a purpose.  When we examine a watch, we see that it does something very systematic.  If we're clever, we note that its movements correspond extraordinarily precisely to the motion of the earth in our solar system.  We further observe that pretty much every component of the watch conforms to patterns that betray intelligence.  No observed non-intelligent processes have a reasonable chance of "randomly" creating even one component of most watches.  

This is in sharp contrast to life on earth, which gives every indication of being non-intelligent in origin.  I wish more people would actually study zoology.  Most competent biologists, given the supposed supernatural powers that God is purported to have, would design a MUCH BETTER life form than anything we find on earth.  Life is extraordinarily inefficient.  The human body is very poorly built.  We have vestigial organs that don't do anything but cause us to go to the hospital.  We have teeth that we'd be better without.  Our eyes have blind spots and don't adjust well to fast changes in brightness.  Most of us don't see very well to begin with.  Our hearing is poor.  We can only tell the very general direction of a sound's source in most cases.  Women's reproductive systems are all fucked up.  Men ejaculate from the same place as they excrete waste.  Our backs aren't designed well for supporting us for our entire life.  

I could go on and on.  A good engineer could build a better human.  If anything, the complexity of most lifeforms points either to an incredibly dumb creator, or blind evolution.

By definition, supernatural things do not exist in nature.  Any effect they have in nature results in natural events.  Since nature, as a concept, covers everything in existence, supernatural things are not existent in nature.  I don't see how this is subjective.

If you discover an Alien object  either biological or inanimate the question has to be:- 

Is it from an intelligent species ?

For a machine  this would be fairly simple answer in that it was constructed.
As for a biological entity  and thus a life form , the assumption is that,  it evolved, as we have done

when Scientists discover Tube plants growing along the Atlantic Ridge , one has to ask  how are they able to
survive at such depths and what are they doing there .. 
but the answer is , they are simply a life form.

To ask why they are there , is  not a question for Science, in fact , asking why , is to ask why do so many life forms exist and others do not 

   Its is because you lack adequate  info,   to rule out the supernatural. All you can do is have an inadequate opinion about it.

That's a subjective opinion.  It's inadequate too.

      I think faith, hope, and love are  most important.   The knowledge we have is inadequate.

   But,  I know that for the umpteenth millionth time,  we will  just agree to disagree.

Based as it is on absolutely no reproducible evidence and hinging on a book written by nobody knows who, applies far more impactfully on you, Fullarmor2.

What you are relying on is feelings going on inside your own mind and body. We've managed to move outside this.

Of course if you could deliver said information about the supernatural we'd at least consider it. Sadly, you lack information on it.

      You don't believe that.   You know perfectly well that not all evolutionists are atheist.

      I disagree.  We lack  knowledge of the universe.  There is no way to be objectively conclusive  about the question of the existence of God.

 Now remember,  I'm a Universalist.   Just because I think I have the grace to believe in God,  that does not mean I judge those who do not.  I believe all people will receive this grace to believe in God.  Either by faith as I do now. Or,  you will believe after you see with your eyes.    

That's why I wrote "for so many" and not "you".

     That is a valid point.    Believing or not should have nothing to do with our passion to learn.

   How can we say that only the things that we know or can prove are truth? 

There is a fundamental problem with the assumption that a complex thing requires a creator. What created the creator? And what created its creator? 

Whereas the assumption, supported by much observation, that apparently complex things can arise from much simpler things, does not run into this problem.

Even the growth of an individual human being demonstrates the growth from a single, completely non-conscious single cell to a far more complex thinking creature, by processes which are all physical.

The evolution of life has similarities.

So the 'naturalistic' position has far more going for it. 

Unless you assume that the creator can be less complex than its creations, which allows us to start with some something very simple, like quantum particles.

Except that we do not observe anything like that in reality, and we have an alternative explanation that doesn't require such a being.

'Omnipotence' is irrelevant, the creator of the universe would need to be powerful, but not necessarily omnipotent.

So you think the idea that something like a God has simply always existed is more reasonable than a non-concious 'sea' of formless quantum energy as a possible origin of Big Bang Universes?

   No.    I would try to harmonize it,  like a theistic evolutionist would. 

OK, so why do you introduce the unnecessary idea of a God if you acknowledge that it is not more reasonable than assuming a Universe without such a Creator being? Save the effort of trying to 'harmonize' it.

It is always going to be possible to come up with a concept of a God which can be consistent with the discoveries and theories of science, the question is why do you prefer to 'believe' in something for which there is no more evidence than for an infinite number of other hypothetical entities?

        We lack the   necessary kind of evidence that you desire.      But you cannot say that you will not discover God at some point,  as you require.   Also you  cannot say that God does not give people grace to believe as I have received just because you don't have it yet.  

   The idea of God is not unnecessary ,  Thats your subjective opinion.  There are other intelligent people who  see a Creator's hand in things,  and  at the same time they love science .  They have a nice balance.   I'm of the opinion that extreme positions are usually wrong.    Whether its the extreme position of a religious nut who denies science or the extreme position of  atheism only.  I think the truth lies in between the two extremes,    BALANCED.