It may be that it needs to be further clarified, but my op is not meant to be an argument for the supernatural. It’s directed at the statement that naturalists often make that there is “no evidence” for the supernatural. My contention is that what is meant by that statement is that there is, as defined in the op, no direct empirical evidence, which is evident since there’s no way to directly access the supernatural realm for direct scientific observation. And that to be correct the statement needs further clarification to distinguish the intended meaning from the term evidence in it’s broader application.
To say there is “no evidence,” I think clearly gives the general public the impression that there is no evidence at all. Since evidence can include other types of evidence besides direct empirical evidence, and as I’ve argued that those other types of evidence can be pointers to infer a supernatural realm in an abductive argument, I’m making the case that therefore without further qualification the statement in question is incorrect. Does that make sense?