What is Supernatural?

I think you're quickly changing the subject of our discussions.I talked about miracles described in the Bible, and you asked how I knew this were Yahweh caused miracles. I said that, to think otherwise, I would have to have evidence that it was someone else then Yahweh.In other words, If I really think that these miracles happened, then I will think God caused them until evidence to the contrary.Because, of course, if I don't think these miracles happened, asking how I know it wasn't another God who caused them becomes pointless.I said you are changing the subject because now you are simply raising doubt on the accuracy of the Bible and the historicity of it's claims, which isn't the original questioning.

Yes. that's exactly what I was attempting to say thanks Edited by slevesque, : wrong phrase structure.

Sorry if I got lost in all this thread. But didn't I answer your question in post 46 ?Nature: our universe, where we can do science, etc.Reality: everything that exists (this may, or may not, include God.)Imaginary: Everything that isn't part of reality.Supernatural: Everything that is part of reality, but not a part of nature.And so with this terminology, any philosophical position can be explained. If reality is strictly nature, than you are a naturalist.Back then you had answered with: do/can we have evidence that there is anything outside of nature? But this is besides the point since all I wanted to do was answer your first question and ismply define supernatural, so as every position can be expressed either it be evidenced or not.

Well maybe it is as defining ''darkness' as 'not light'.red and blue can be characterised by their wave length, but black can only be described as the absence of light.Or maybe my definition is incomplete a bit. I was previously using the expression ''outside of nature'' which I thought was more appropriate since it defined supernatural by distinction of nature and not by opposition, but some didn't like it either.I still think my attempted definitions are the best that have come up in this thread. Better then the ''supernatural doesn't exist no need to define it!!!'' claims that are swirling around.

Hi,You are right, if it exists and is within our universe than it is labelled natural. The problem comes from you assuming that if something is outside our universe, we have no evidence for it. But this isn't necessarily true.We will never be able to use the scientific method concerning the center of a black hole. But we know it is real. The multiverse is a great outflow of string theory, yet probably we will never be able to empirically demonstrate it.

Analogies aren't perfect unfortunately. It was just to show that it isn't uncommon to define something in regards to something else. THe structure of the word was my first line of thinking when coming with 'outside of nature' Your analogy doesn't really describe the situation here. We can go outside of america into europe to see what it is and describe this way. This cannot be done in the case of nature, and so it limits how we can define it.A more suitable analogy would be if we were all locked up in a house with no contact with the exterior world but a little tiny hole in the ceiling. Everyday, light would start to come through the hole and follow a precise trajectory across the room and disappear. One day, the most crazy out of us would say that this light comes from a light source that is actually outside the house and who is circling us. This would explain it's trajectory. How useful would it be for the others to say:- well, where is this light source anyway ?- I can't tell for sure, but I can say that it is outside the house.- Oh but this doesn't tell us where it is. It simply tells us where it is not. That's not an answer.- Well I cannot tell you anymore then this, because this is all I can say from our point of view.Of course, his answer isn't the best one possible. But it is the only one he can give, and in fact it is sufficient enough for everybody to understand what he means and so although it isn't optimal, it still is accurate enough.