if a thing exists then it is part of a set of things that can exist and is therefore natural . Let ' s back up . I think you failed to read my original comment If you mean natural and , to be fair , it ' s one of the least welldefined words in English in the sense of being a part of the reality of our experience , then a noncontingent entity would not be natural . Noncontingency is not a part of our experience of reality , and essentially cannot be . Sure , you can define natural as all the things . In this case , everything is natural that we can conceive of . But there is a sense in which natural as we tend to use it to discern the concept of unnatural or supernatural does not mean simply all the things . Rather , it implies a relationship between ontological entities which has some reciprocal qualities . That reciprocity breaks down when you consider noncontingency . There can no longer be any contingent interaction in the other direction , which violates any reasonable sense of natural . So yes , you could make that assertion , but I don ' t think that it holds up against the most common usage of that word , and certainly the usage you ' re asserting renders the word entirely moot for any sort of discerning statement .