What is Supernatural?

Looking at the history of the supernatural in human discourse it would appear to me that the supernatural is just another name for ignorance. Where is the supernatural? Just beyond the horizon of our knowledge. Everytime we learn something new about reality it turns out to be natural and that horizon of the supernatural moves once again. As Stephen Weinberg put it:"Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator... Today, for real mystery, one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete."
--book, "Dreams of a Final Theory"We have always equated the mysterious with the supernatural. As those mysteries are solved we find out that it wasn't supernatural afterall.

Why suggest that it was created to start with? Is the supernatural nothing more than a an imagined realm that other people must disprove? Ever heard of Russel's Teapot?

Indistinguishable from a god who doesn't exist. No, it is an observation. We can observe jewelry being made without the intervention of a supernatural being. Therefore, the existence of a nose ring does not require the existence of a supernatural deity.

Then it would seem that you need to show that a god exists before suggesting that existence can be supernatural. Lacking such evidence there is no reason to suggest that there is a supernatural realm. But how do you determine the difference between imaginary and real?

No they don't. Evolutionists claim that life changes over time through the mechanisms of mutation, selection, and speciation. That's it. Nowhere in evolution does it describe how the universe came about nor how the first life came about. I don't know. Is it?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Since you seem to be the one pushing the idea of the supernatural why don't you tell us.

This seems incomplete. It is analogous to defining "red" as "not blue". If it is not nature, then what is it? It seems that supernatural can only be defined by what it is not, not by what it is.

Can you show us, using the scientific method (your method of choice), that the supernatural exists? If not, then is it not equivalent to something that is imagined?

You seem to be pulled in two different directions. You want things to be unknowable and unobservable, and yet you keep injecting a specific idea, the god idea, into the discussion. If it is so unknowable and unobservable then why suggest "God" to begin with? You blame others for rejecting ideas out of hand, and yet the very things we are accused of rejecting are made up from nothing. As the old saw goes, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So by extension the supernatural is the absence of the natural? That's it? It's equivalent to nothing? I certainly think that is a better start since it is consistent with the structure of the word (super = above). "Outside of nature" might be better described as "perinatural", or perhaps "paranatural" which is close to paranormal.But again, we have some of the same problems. No one describes the geography of Europe as "outside of America". At some point there needs to be a positive description, a description of what actually constitutes the supernatural.

There is that assumption again. Why "God"? Why not (as Huntard keeps mentioning) Xongsong, or my favorite which is Marklar? Do we have to ponder whether or not Never Never Land exists, depending on whether or not Peter Pan exists? How far down the rabbit hole have you gone?You are so turned around that you can't even tell us whether or not you brushed your teeth this morning. In an effort to make God possible you have made everything impossible to determine.

I think you are confusing Evolutionists with Abiogenesists, Big Bangists, and Stringists. I bet if you asked them what their favorite flavor of ice cream was they would tell you. That doesn't make Rocky Road a part of evolution nor does it make Rocky Road a requisite part of the Evolution argument. People say a lot of things. What I am interested in is the evidence which supports their claims. What is that evidence?

Hence the problem. We have people trying to assert the qualities of something that can not be observed. So what is the equivalent observation for the supernatural and natural? What is the equivalent of the light beam? What observable phenomenon does the supernatural project into the natural?

Those physicists are not called "scientists" because of their philosophical musings. They are called scientists because they proposed testable hypotheses that were verified by scientific experiments.

This statement is immediately followed by . . . You make it quite clear that you don't want to know. The only assumption here is your injection of "God" into the discussion. You need to provide evidence of God before God can be considered.