Yes, I know there are those who want to define the Supernatural out of existence, but you can't do that without complete knowledge of the Universe. If you could, you would have the solution to Russell's Teapot.

In order to define the supernatural out of existence one would first have to define it INTO existence. "Supernatural" is a meaningless term unless we have some notion that nature actually has ends, we know roughly where those ends are, and we have some means to tell which side of this putative divide a phenomenon resides on.

Otherwise we're just stuck with another natural phenomenon. It is fundamentally perverse to posit the existence of two somehow distinct types of phenomenon (natural and supernatural) in the absence of any valid way to distinguish between them, or any understanding of what the one might consist in apart from not being the other one. That isn't a valid approach to ontology, that's a somewhat garbled restatement of the concept of difference.