Things acting in a coherent fashion is, in effect, the defining characteristic of naturalism. This is why supernaturalism is incoherent.
You claim that a necessary property of anything that is ‘natural’ is that it must act in a coherent manner (“acting in a coherent fashion is, in effect, the defining characteristic of naturalism”). I am assuming that by ‘coherent’ you intend to convey notions of predictability, logical consistency, or metaphysical necessity. I will certainly grant you that the observational experience of homo erectus has been that nature is characterized by predictable patterns, but this does not in any way imply metaphysical necessity. For all we know, that perceived pattern could revert to an unpredictable pattern in the future; there is nothing logically inconsistent about a rock falling up, it just hasn’t happened in our experience – all things being equal of course. So you need to explain to me why you think that nature must be predictable, which is totally different from saying that in order to learn about nature we must expect predictable patterns. No number of observations, no matter how great, can lead to necessary predictability, only expected predictability.
It seems to me that in the second sentence you have used the word ‘incoherent’ in a different way from the way you used the word 'coherent' in the first sentence. When describing nature I think your intention was to say something about the predictability of nature; however, in the second sentence it seems like you are saying that if God’s behavior is unpredictable then the concept of God is logically inconsistent. I don’t think that logical inconsistency is at all demonstrated by mere unpredictability; if it did then you would have an argument against the existence of God. In actuality, unpredictability could not possibly be an argument against the existence of any being. I could suddenly act in an unpredictable way on this forum (e.g. I could randomly insert a swear word into my sentence). That would be perceived by you to be in drastic contrast to the persona that I have presented so far (e.g. unpredictable), but I don’t think that you would consider the possibility of my doing so to be logically impossible nor do I think that you would therefore infer that I don’t exist.
An interesting argument but unsustainable. (i) Unpredictability as an argument against the supernatural on a macro level where object obey known laws is not valid. (ii) at the micro-level the variance in levels of predictability can be averaged to give remarkably reliable figures. This variance does not vary, hence (i).
A supernatural being would be able alter the eternal laws of the universe to suit one person who prayed, thus, on the macro- and micro-level we would see numerous diversions from the predicted: we do not. In fact, we would have two distinct patterns, one where current laws were obeyed and another where clear evidence of the supernatural could be seen. We do not see the latter.
Nature's predictability is inherent from what "nature" is. Nature is a collection of atoms, molecules, etc, that obey laws. Imagine a wind. We cannot say what each molecule of the wind is doing but, given the wind-speed and humidity, we can say, with high accuracy, how a wind will, for example press upon a wall. The force of the wind is, in fact a massive summation of individual molecules and is remarkably accurate, more accurate than we actually need.
Your next fallacy is "there is nothing logically inconsistent about a rock falling up," (i) this would entail the creation of energy within a closed system. (ii) Naturally you do not say what would cause the rock to "fall up" nor what you mean by "fall" nor do you say how "up" has been determined. I mention this as Christians tend to rely on "the uncaused cause" A rock "falling up" would be in this category.
The conclusion of the following statement is so deceptive as to be false: " the observational experience of homo erectus
has been that nature is characterized by predictable patterns, but this does not in any way imply metaphysical necessity[nb]for the sake of the record, I would ask you to define your term "metaphysical necessity" in the light of the Higgs Boson.
Once a law has been established, variance from it is not possible. If there is an exception then it is incumbent upon use to find out why, rather than introduce the infinitely more complicated "supernatural". Once the exception is shown, then the law is amended. This is distinct from the infantile explanation "God did it."
Humans have seen that, throughout history, the acceptance of the supernatural is the acceptance of willful ignorance. You only need refer to mentions of "thunderbolts sent by the gods, to realise the truth in this.
Your whole argument rests upon, "We can never know," The truth is that over the past 300 years we have known; we have found that the supernatural has become unacceptable as an explanation of anything. As each "fact" has been uncovered, gods and superstition (the same thing) have retreated - you will be aware of "the God of the Gaps".
Your argument also boils down to (i) "We don't know some things therefore God did it." (ii) "Who is to say what might happen?
The worship of gods is the worship of ignorance. The asinine adherence to the creed of "God did it" is what holds back societies.
Edit to include image: