What is Supernatural?

Just about anything can be claimed to exist. But obviously I agree with you that nothing that isn't detectable in some fashion, can be shown to exist.I would not agree that the term supernatural entails undetectability. Most claims regarding supernatural entities or events make them detectable. Instead, I would define the supernatural as being that which is capable of acting independently of, or appears to contradict, known natural "laws". "Supernatural" may be a misnomer. "Above nature" might better be thought of as "beyond our current understanding of the cosmos".Admittedly, this probably includes many phenomena that most people would not consider within the realm of "supernatural".Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Good evening mr Levesque, I disagree with both these statements for a few subtle reasons. First off, I disagree with your definition of "nature". I'm inclined to consider everything that exists and can be studied to be a part of nature. This would include other universes, a multiverse, whatever. That way we will never have to redefine "nature" as the borders of our understanding expand into new territories.If God (and I'm making that a big IF for our non-theistic friends here) has existed eternally (whatever that means in the absence of time), then God is the natural state of existence.
If God has ever been observed, and if there is a book that describes God and assigns various traits to Him, then to some extent He can be studied and understood. Which, as I see it, places Him within the natural realm.This definition of reality makes "supernatural" an obsolete concept. Instead, we have the bits of nature that we understand, and the bits of nature that we may one day come to grips with.Is there any useful reason to label something supernatural?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Have you seen any of these miracles? If not, from where do you derive your Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Where do you draw the line between our universe, and the rest of reality? We used to believe that the planets and stars were subject to different rules than we are. Now we struggle to find out what happens to the laws of physics in the singularities of black holes, as well as getting the smallest elementary particles to play by the same rules as us. If a sub-atomic particle appears to violate "laws of nature" by being in two places at once, is it supernatural?Just because something may not be currently understood, that does not mean that there aren't rules that govern it, and that those rules might someday be discovered.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

This is not unique to Christianity. Would it not be more accurate to say:

quote:

---

Finally, we must not forget that the christian belief in God has another source; a written account of miracles

---

Since I know of very few people today who base their beliefs off of miracles they've actually experienced (I do know a few however).Curiously, modern miracles, examples of the supernatural allegedly bending the laws of nature, tend to look pretty natural. No pillars of fire to be viewed by multitudes of people, and no chariots from heaven picking people up into the sky. What happened to the good old days of pillars of fire, chariots from heaven, and entire cities being swallowed by the ground? When did great pyrotechnics get replaced by people being "miraculously" healed in hospitals, and unfortunates finding renewed purpose in life?I'm not even sure we can tell the difference between miracles and non-miracles, supernatural or natural anymore.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

It is at least tangentially related to the topic. We are discussing the definition of the supernatural. I'm suggesting that observed miracles, which you claim are supernatural, are difficult to distinguish from utterly natural occurences.
In Message 20 you stress that supernatural is distinct from the "natural" world in a meaningful way. In support of this argument, I would like you to provide a way to distinguish the supernatural from the natural.
As I argued in Message 22, you would have to go beyond just anything not "subject to the laws of our universe". Since we do not yet fully understand the laws of our universe, we'd have no way of knowing if an observed event violated them.I'm not trying to disprove miracles, or argue semantics, I'm trying to find a solid reason why the term "supernatural" has any real utility, or if it's just as onifre said in Message 4Respectfully,-Meldinoor