What is supernatural?

I can understand your point. I suppose it might be an effort to give meaning to the anomoly, to say "it's supernatural". Amazingly though, spirits have been reported for thousands of years.I associate a persons legs + reported phenomenon as standing a good chance of having something to do with "spirits" but that's just my opinion.

That's just it, though. What if science progresses enough in the future to actually have explanations for such phenomena? Would it still be supernatural? What if science finds out that ghosts are natural instead of supernatural? Would ghosts still be supernatural?

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Do you think that given enough time, science and/or rational thought will be able to explain EVERY mystery in life? Are you so rational that you define the mysterious as mere unexplained natural phenomena?

How can we know the answer to that?We might try looking at what history shows us. So far, that has been the case. The best guess is; yes.The question is: Are we capable of explaining every mystery. Maybe the universe is queerer that we can imagine. Maybe we will answer all the mysteries we stumble across simply because there will be some we can't even recognize.

Well, I can't know that, but that has been the trend, so far.I see no reason why science can't develop models for all aspects of the human experience.

Then he can't be supernatural. If he can interact with things in the natural world, then he's part of the natural world. Wherever he goes when he's not in our world becomes a part of the natural world too. But obviously you inhabit the same world as the motorcycle.

The motorcycle represents the natural. I represent God. Let's say that natural and supernatural are two sides of the same coin. Existence.I still transcend the motorcycle. You won't evidence me in the motorcycle. Let's test your modus ponen if I may Crash.If he can interact with the natural then he's part of it.How is this conditional though? How can you know for sure that his interacting would make him natural? If I interact with my motorbike, it doesn't mean I am part of it. What if the natural is just part of a bigger plain, like the motorbike?Also, nothing is impossible to someone who made everything. I still say your implication is untrue.Are you dismissing the possibility that God could find a way of interacting without becoming it? Maybe if he is unseen, and prods it with a supernatural spatular for example.I mean, natural and supernatural are simple concepts, they may well not in any way sufficiently, describe the truth of this situation. It might be like describing the science of the sun rising and setting, as simply day and night.Fair enough, if you evidence a ghost, then I can see that you can now get your hands on it naturally, but what if you can't evidence the ghost, yet it moves your furniture?Maybe the N and SN are both part of reality.

It may represent natural things, but it can't represent the natural world, which is not a thing, but rather, the set of all objects that can interact with each other. Then they're part of the same thing; the same natural world. What I said is that it would make him part of the natural world. By definition, it must. The natural world is the set of all objects that can interact that also includes humans. (This separates it from the "natural worlds" of other planes of reality or what have you. We are, obviously, interested right now in only the natural world that we inhabit.)If God can interact with things in the natural world, by definition, he is a part of it. Yes. That is not a possibility because it is not logically coherent. God cannot be both A and ~A at the same time. Then they're both part of the same thing, a thing we call "the natural world."

Or they are both part of the ultimate endeavor. The supernatural world. And natural would evidence supernatural, thanks. But I'm saying he's supernatural only, and can interact with the natural, without becoming it. For example, the Word, though it eventually became flesh ofcourse. Yes, this is what the motorcycle represents. Yet I am not found in it by you. I disagree, despite your explanation.If I can interact with ghosts, by communicating with them, does that mean I am a ghost/supernatural?I am not buying your conditional implication because I don't think it's conditional.Also, |"God cannot" is trumped by; "Nothing shall be impossible with God".Stick to your guns but I am also.

No. If both of these purported worlds are the same thing, then they must be the natural world, not the supernatural world, because the supernatural world is defined as being "above" the natural world, and how can something be above itself? And I'm telling you that position is incoherent. It's like saying God is A and ~A. That's contradictory. God can't be both soley supernatural and interact with the natural world. Being soley supernatural means that he can't interact with the natural world. No, it doesn't. A thing can't represent a set. You've picked an analogy that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Then you disagree with the definitions of the words we're using. Which is the point of the thread - what definition of "supernatural" do you propose that allows God to influence things in the natural world and still remain supernatural? No, Mike, as I explained above, it means that the ghosts are natural, not supernatural.

One which allows God to not be detectable by science yet interact unknowingly in this world, unless he chooses to make it known. But a motorcycle has many interacting parts. It is full of parts, interacting. I can "start" it and interact with it yet I transcend it. Logically, I have interacted with it yet I am not it. If is self-sufficient, yet you can't locate me, because I'm not a motorcycle. Doesn't it mean that he is supernatural, or not detected naturally?I think he can transcend yet interact without being natural.So, I even agree that you can't really "detect" or lay hands on the supernatural with science. So what with the disagreement? Is it because you are against God?

Indeed. You are, of course, going off of a different definition of God than I am. On a number line analogy, God, being infinite, is not only the value of 0 to infinity, but is also the value of 0 to - infinity. Many think that we are humans having a spiritual experience. Few see that we are spirits having a human experience.

Yes, you've described the definition that would allow your position to be coherent.Unfortunately you haven't given us the definition. But you don't transcend what makes the motorcycle work; you're subject to the same rules, constraints, and laws that govern the motorcycle.You're part of the same world as the motorcycle. You "transcend" nothing. You can't intervene undetected. The very act of intervention makes your presence known.If you cause an effect, as you're proposing God does, you become detectable. That is, after all, how we detect things - by the effects they cause. That's either not true, or it's true by definition. It works like this:If the supernatural means that which is different from known natural laws or entities that can influence the natural world, we can detect those things. The very act of influencing the natural world leaves detectable consequences.If the supernatural means that which cannot be detected by science, then, by definition, it can have no influence on the natural world, because if it did, it would become detectable by science and cease to be supernatural.So whether or not the supernatural is detectable depends on how you define it, which was the point of this thread. People like you vacillate between the two definitions in an effort to explain how something can both influence and be undetectable. That's equivocation.Since we detect things by virtue of their influence, you can't have something that is both able to influence and be undetected. There's no such thing as an undetectable influence. No, it's because people like you can't decide what you mean by "supernatural."

God, being an entity and not a number, cannot have a value at all.

But then, you say: So what gives? How can we declare what God can and cannot be?
At least my theory is shared by many believers, even if we can't define why we ascribe to it.