What's the best definition of Nature and its contrast to the supernatural?

I'm sure that I can't say what the "best" definition of the natural is, but I can try to say why an answer to your question has proven very difficult. Many philosophers, like myself, thinking of themselves as enlightened, scientifically educated folk, have wanted to avoid committing themselves to anything "supernatural." They balk at the idea of immaterial souls, ESP, poltergeists, miracles, vampires, magic, and the like. But just what do these things have in common in virtue of which they count as supernatural? It can't be that they aren't now recognized as existing, or as ever having existed, by current natural scientists. Current natural scientists will be the first to confess that they do not know all that exists in the universe: they expect to be surprised by future discoveries of natural phenomena. It can't be that what makes something supernatural is the fact that the recognition of such objects would require that one countenance the existence of objects that would violate those laws of nature...