What is supernatural?

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.

From the definition of "God." If you're talking about something besides the accepted Christian God, you should probably say so.

Well, if it can't be tested, then it might as well not exist, because it has no effect on the natural world.Likewise, if something "supernatural" has an effect on the natural world, it can be tested for. That's how we test for things, after all - their effects.

But we test things by their effects on the natural world.If you're saying it can't be tested, then you're saying it has no effect. If it has an effect, it can be tested.

Then it is testable.You don't seem to draw a distinction between things we can't test yet and things we'll never be able to test, or something.I'm talking about the state of the universe; you seem to be hung up on the state of human knowledge. That hardly has anything to do with the supernatural.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-12-2004 06:18 PM

Granted. At one time, that was true of a great number of things we now recognize as basic natural forces. None of them were ever "supernatural." In what sense is any of what you're talking about "supernatural"? At best you've identitifed totally natural phenomenon that, as yet, we can't explain.

Gravity wasn't supernatural before we understood it as a universal force. Radioactivity wasn't supernatural. The unexplained isn't supernatural, it's unexplained. In what way? Once we explain them, they're simply the result of natural forces or entities. In what way would they be supernatural?

Works for me, but until then, will you agree that there's nothing we know to be supernatural, but plenty we know to be unexplained?

Who?

Well, if what you mean is, we part because you can no longer use rational discussion to support your position, I guess we do. But we're still no closer to understanding what is meant by "supernatural".

But that's not the supernatural; the history of science shows us that.That's simply the unexplained. Not the supernatural.

How do you know? What leads you to put God in a different class than all the other things that we can't explain? (Leaving out for a minute that I believe that "God" is very well explained, of course.)

If I start to detect a pattern of kicked footballs and broken windows, and I'm able to cross-reference that with the time you scheduled to use the field for practice, yes. Even if I never see you do it.The football in my living room opens the door for me to detect you. So, what you're saying is, God never does anything that couldn't have happened naturally? Then how do you know God does anything at all? If God made something happen that would have happened anyway, what exactly did God do? That's like me trying to take credit for gravity. Since the engine doesn't start until you start it, and nobody can start it but you because you have the ignition key, then yes, I can detect your presence from a kickstarted engine. Except that which cannot be. A thing cannot be something and it's opposite at the same time. Saying "well, God can do anything" when it's obvious God does nothing is no argument. I don't. I would conclude that the wind is natural, because I don't go around ascribing totally natural things to some supernatural Superman that nobody can detect. But clearly, some things must be. Some things can't happen in the universe; that's a fundamental result of how the universe is. The football through my window is the trace, Mike.

How did you get that from my post, where I specifically said there was nothing we knew to be supernatural, only things we knew to be unexplained?You can't both conclude that something is unexplained and supernatural, because saying it's supernatural is an explanation.