If you're defining "nature" as "anything that exists", and if you're defining any argument for God as "God of the gaps", then there's really no possible response to that. You've defined them out of existence. By your own words, anything that appears to be supernatural actually isn't, because from the start there's no such category. I have no idea what sort of evidence you'd be looking for at that point.
Any would be a pleasant surprise - Not to suggest that I'm looking. You can presume that a nonspatial mountain, nontemporal agent, or an instance of decreasing entropy either exists or *must* exist - But it's a tall order; given they're precluded from existence on a conceptual level. I'm not expecting you to provide the impossible - I'm saying, "The task,
as presented, is impossible - So good luck with that. I'll be over here, digging into a moon pie." I have no reason to expect developments, good tidings, or
anything,
at all on that front. Jim Steinman didn't write "there ain't no Coupe De Ville hiding at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box" as a challenge.
For the sake of example: The reason I don't need to
believe in infinity is because I already
understand that it exists as a purely illustrative concept for relativity in numbers (e.g., "a googolplex is as far below infinity as 1"). An
empirical example of infinity (as defined on the conceptual level) could never be measured; therefore it cannot conceptually be presumed to exist - Its existence would, in all sense of the word, be pointless. Someone is free to put their own, personalized definition or assertions to do with infinity as an ontological concept forward - But if it doesn't actually manage to serve a purpose beyond seeming profound to the person who came up with it, then others can't really be expected to replace the previous version with it unless it affords ass-pats of their own.
To some, that may seem like sound reasoning. Of course, you touch on why others would disagree:
Just because something lies outside the bounds of science doesn't make it a meaningless question. Questions of morality, for example. Now if you want to be a completely, ruthlessly consistent Nietzsche style materialist and say that even things like consciousness and morality don't exist - I respect that. But that's a worldview, as unproven and unprovable as any other.
If you really believed that all worldviews are unproven
and unprovable, you wouldn't be bothering with holding a contrary one purported to be superior.
There are three degrees of certainty people routinely use in their day-to-day existence: Conceptual, empirical, and universal. Conceptual certainty is "I bet a good actor is someone who pretends so hard that other people believe it." Empirical certainty is "That actor's good because they pretended so hard that other people believed it." Universal certainty is someone asking me who the best actor is; and I respond that I haven't seen every actor to know that. Yet many people wouldn't even hesitate to decree who, or what, or where the "best" such-and-such is - Because they're
full of shit. Of course, people can be hyperbolic, tongue-in-cheek, or passionate in their opinions, all in a self-aware manner. But also, they're full of shit.
The most my worldview can ever amount to is the perimeter of my ignorance - And from its measure, the machinery may be inferred: Sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, nociception, proprioception, vestibular sensation, thermoreception, magnetoreception, and even the can of worms that intuition is for people who insist there's wiggle room there for them to be special. Every experience I've attempted to use as a waypoint toward further understanding of myself has served only to be a model of my own nervous system. You're free to re-draw the lines by asserting that a worldview striving for objectivity is unprovable because one ultimately cannot trust their own senses - But it would only be for the sake of claiming that your worldview is no worse than mine. It doesn't manage to make yours seem any more compelling.
If you need a special place to exist outside the universe that can't be questioned, you're entitled to that need. But because I neither share your needs, nor have reason to, I read about it and only wonder what outside yourself necessitates it.
