Peanut Gallery

None. Lets be honest and admit "supernatural" means nothing at all. Furthermore, lets accept that all concepts must be products of human imagination, otherwise, it is not a concept. How can a concept not be a fictional invention? Concepts can only be concepts. Concepts come from humans. If a human saw a being that had miraculous powers, it would still be here in our reality and thus natural, not supernatural. If it exists in some "outside of reality" realm, it is inherently unknowable, and exists only as a concept - derived from the human imagination.It's only logical that concepts come from our minds, esp. a suprernatural concept. Otherwise, it wouldn't be supernatural or a concept.- Oni

Oh sure, if superman realy existed he would be able to turn time backwards by flying at super high speeds.What I meant by what you quoted was, if we saw something take place that looked miraculous, since it was taking place in reality, there would be a natural explanation for it. That was the jist of what I meant. Like this: If that's what people are calling 'supernatural' having absolutely zero evidence for such a realm, just pure imagination, then my point stands that it basically describes nothing.Distinctions for debate purposes may allow for nonsensical concepts just to have a starting point o debate from, but "ethereal heavenly afterlife outside of time outside of material reality realm" really describes nothing, and only confirmes the already imaginative concept of a god. It doesn't describe it better, it makes it further ambiguous.- Oni

Well sort of, yes. Everything is natural, there is only the natural, no evidence exists for anything else. Never has anyone ever witnessed anything that they could claim to be supernatural, they may say it, but its not honest. The only thing they can say is, I saw something I can't explain. It has been common though, in past cultures, to introduced as a linguistic place filler the word "supernatural" until someone explains it naturally.In all cases of phenomena, the details of the answer is what we are after, not just a word that satisfies the curiosity. It's the equivilant of saying god-did-it for the origin of the universe. Ok, god-did-it, but how?Saying supernatural answers nothing, it just introduces a new question - what does supernatural mean? Sure, in the arena of fiction anything is possible. All you need is trust and a little bit of pixie dust. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

No, Straggler, you miss the point. If in fact Jesus was born of a virgin, then either the claim itself is not true, or, there is a natural explanation (not yet known to us) that demonstrates how this happened. If he in fact did walk on water, then either he didn't really walk on water, or, there is a natural explanation (not yet known to us) of how someone could walk on water. I think you get where I'm going with the rest. If the laws of nature were suspended, there still leaves the question of how...? Saying it was supernatural doesn't explain it.- Oni

Because nothing else satisfies. But if the word supernatural is just a linguistic place filler, then it means nothing more than "I don't know."- Oni

But neither is anyone satified with God-did-it or it was magic. Why does supernatural get a pass? As determined by who? Is a solar eclipse something that doesn't operate according to determinable, accessible rules? Well, not today it's not, but it was once considered such. Would someone living 1000 years ago consider the universe to be working under determinable, accessible rules?A point in time where something doesn't operate with determinable, accessible rules is a point in time where not enough is understood about that something.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Sure, something like that can be described as supernatural, magical, meta-physical, whatever you want really. In some stories people can fly, in some, animals can talk. In the unlikely event that any of this actually happens, nature and reality as we understand it will need to be redefined. What definition for the word supernatural have you heard that makes it something tangible? All I every hear is something ambiguous that in the end defines nothing at all.- Oni

It can, if it recognizes the use of the term as a linguistic place filler and nothing more. But only as compared to our imagination, not something tangible.The word supernatural was derived at from human experience - obviously, it is a word made up to refer to something experienced on Earth - whether or not something supernatural was actually experienced is another argument.So, how can an Earthly experience tell a human anything about the universe beyond our observable horizon? It can't. Only our imaginations can postulate the opposite of what we understand, and only in a vague, ambiguous sense. Which is where words like magic, god, miracles and supernatural origniate. As linguistic place fillers.- Oni

Then are you saying that anyone can change the word "supernatural" to mean whatever they conceptualize? In other words, to a Christian, Jesus is considered supernatural. But, to a tribesmen, an eclipse is considered supernatural. And both are right? If this was the case, then all other concepts of the supernatural are negated. The supernatural would simply be Jesus. If this was the case, then there is no longer a need for the word supernatural, just call it Jesus. Nothing else would be allowed to be supernatural if it wasn't Jesus.You see, you just had to say, "If the Christian concept of god...actually existed." You didn't have to use the word supernatural in front of god, because, that word doesn't represent anything. If you omit it, it doesn't change god. If you add it, you didn't change god. Because really, what is the difference between a god, and a supernatural god? Because, the first coming was never established to be genuinely supernatural. Who determined that something was genuinely inexplicable in terms of natural laws? If I let the tribesmen explain eclipses to me, I'd be getting an answer much like the Christians explaining Jesus to me.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

No, the concept is whatever anyone wants it to be. But saying Spiderman, or a better example, Chris Angel, has magical powers, when magic is undefinable other than "It's a trick," doesn't make magic something more now. Magic is either a trick, or something not yet understood. Nothing that you can point to will not be derived from, or subject to, natural law, Straggler. But, because you know the limits to natural laws, sure, you can conceptualize the opposite. But not as something tangible itself. No. Because then the tribesmen's description of an ecplise being supernatural is equally valid as an example of the supernatural. I agree that it is something to them, but only in the sense that the tribesmen's description of an ecplise being supernatural is something to him.- Oni

Not according to the tribesmen. It is to a tribesmen because they have no other explanation for it. What made the god supernatural but let the eclipse escape the label? You could have just said, what humans think is supernatural is irrelevant.- Oni

But Straggler, who determines that? If I left it up to the tribesmen, the cause of the eclipse fits your definition. If I left to modern day science, it would be the orbit of the planets.It's all subjectively relative. Than can someone tell me how the term "supernatural" is not a linguistic place filler? The ruler of the Matrix would fit the bill, I think? If it did occur, and the only description of his coming is from the Christian perspective, then it is equal to an eclipse occuring and our only description of it coming from the tribesmen.In both cases, the person will use words like god, magic and supernatural to describe the event. But that is from the first person account. Relative to modern day science, an explanation of an eclipse would NOT involve these words.So, why, oh why, should the explanation of the Christian with the usage of those terms mean that there is a possiblitiy for such a realm to exist?Couldn't it just mean, that like the tribesmen, not just the Christian but any human being using the words god, magic and supernatural is just using a place filler? Couldn't it just mean that like the tribesmen, they too found themselves explaning something they didn't understand so they used these terms to fill a gap in knowledge? I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying they, like the tribesmen, lack information on the phenomenon.- Oni

Right, and because we know exactly how it happens the term "supernatural," which was then just a place filler, is removed. Because, the same person telling me the eclipse is not supernatural is telling me god/s are supernatural. Having never seen a god, met a god, known a god, been in the company of a god, I must ask you...How do you know that, Mr. Jack?What methodology did you use to arrive at such an amazing answer, and why isn't it available to me?I don't accept human testimonials because there was a time when such a testimonial would have told me the cause of the ecplise is supernatural, so what do I have to go by?- Oni

Do you think people living 2000 years ago knew they could do that?- Oni

The only thing I am denying is the ability of human beings to accurately explain a phenomenon based on our limited knowledge. Of course not. Nothing is impossible. There could be upside-down trees, and flying unicorns. My argument is simply with the use of the word supernatural and what it describes. There are still eclipses, volcanos errupting, diseases, and anything else that was considered supernatural - likewise there can still be a god.But what does any of that have to do with the term supernatural being more than a place filler?- Oni