Peanut Gallery

I don't know. What does "supernatural" mean?

No. You miss the point. If the Christian (or indeed any other) concept of the supernatural is true then you cannot simply refute this by saying "I define it otherwise". Unless the Christian concept of a supernatural God who is neither derived from, nor subject to natural laws because he is the source of such laws - actually exists.Now I think this is as as silly as you do. But your assertions make this an impossibility. And claiming that things are utterly impossible because your definitions don't allow otherwise just isn't a valid argument. Yes. You are denying the possibility of the genuinely supernatural. But that is not logically, philosophically or evidentially justified.So on what basis are you asserting that things which are genuinely supernatural in the sense of being genuinely inexplicable in terms of natural laws (e.g. the second coming of Christ as conceived by Christians) are absolutely impossible? No it doesn't explain anything. But so what? If it is both genuinely supernatural and true then it remains true regardless of what your definitions allow.

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

Is it anything unreal that you are calling "nothing"? Or is there more to your "absolutely nothing" label than that?This is what I don't get about your position. Is the concept of Spider-man also "nothing" because it isn't real? Simply defining things that are neither derived from, nor subject to, natural laws as "natural" does not make them so in any meaningful sense. Well Christ as the son of God in human form is the very obvious example of a tangible but supernatural entity. No? The supernatural explanations put forwards by Buz and his ilk may be stupidly wrong but they are not "nothing".The sort of deistic concept of God we have at times vaguely been confronted with by RAZ you could reasonably argue is "nothing". But not all supernatural claims are ambiguous.

Then you would agree that there is more evidence favouring the human ability and inclination to invent gods than there is of the actual existence of gods? The IPU is no more or less falsifiable than is the magically undetectable Easter rabbit. The IPU is designed to be unfalsifiable.That is the point of the IPU. Why you think even looking up the Immaterial Pink Unicorn on wikipedia before concluding that it is necessarily a human invention (being imperceptible as it is) remains a mystery.Beyond the philosophical possibility of some miraculous co-incidence whereby the human imagination has stumbled across some entirely imperceptible truth by pure chance - We know that the IPU is a made-up entity.

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

The tribesman is wrong. Because an eclipse isn't supernatural but if the eclipse was caused by an angry god covering the sun then it would be supernatural. What the tribesman, or Christian, thinks is supernatural is irrelevant.

You are conflating the phenomenon with the supernatural explanation. The eclipse is the eclipse. It is what is believed caused the eclipse that is supernatural. Supernatural in the sense of being inherently immune from material understanding in any way. Jesus is an example of a phenomenon which is conceived to be inherently materially inexplicable (by those that believe in his divinity)The eclipse spirit (or whatever) that is the cause of your eclipse example likewise is believed to be inherently materially inexplicable by those that believe in it's existence.That is what is meant by "supernatural". Even the most wild eyed proponents of Jesus's supernatural divinity would not define supernatural to the conceptual exclusion of all else in the way that you are doing. It represents the belief that there are things which both exist and which are inherently beyond material explanation or any laws of nature. Are there any non-supernatural god concepts?Supernatural in the sense of being inherently beyond material understanding. And it almost certainly wasn't genuinely supernatural. If any of it happened at all.But simply insisting that by your definitions it must be natural if it did occur does not in any way mean that it is impossible that the genuinely supernatural does exist. Yes. And whilst they would probably both be relentlessly wrong simply defining their beliefs to be impossible does not make them so.That is the point.

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

The concept of spider-man is very well defined. Real or not.As are many supernatural concepts. Unless it genuinely is supernatural magic. Which is a possibility that your position necessarily denies as being impossible.But that stance is logically, evidentially and philsophically unjustified. Does being intangible make the supernatural existence of something impossible?

The fact that we can materially investigate (and thus potentially explain) the eclipse.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why do you think the tribesman's ignorance makes the blindest bit of difference? It's not supernatural. You know how eclipse happen. It's perfectly natural. The eclipse happens according to a set of natural laws and principles. The god doesn't. I really don't see what is hard about it?

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