What is Supernatural?

Frogs. Potato chips. Blimps. Nose-jewelery. Microwave ovens. Whooping cough. Tapirs. Fondue. Gravel.

Speak for yourself --- it's not me that's asking all the silly questions. It does not in fact require a "leap of faith" to conclude that nose jewelery is not supernatural. It just requires a total absence of supernatural nose jewelery.

Your fantasies about what I comprehend are inaccurate. Yes. Nose jewelery is not supernatural because there is no evidence that it contravenes the laws of nature. I dare say a god could produce nose jewelery by a miracle, but I see no evidence that a god has ever done so. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Your point is obscure. To be supernatural, a thing has to contravene the laws of nature. No. This is why I said no such thing. Since you invent opinions and assumptions for me which I do not hold, you are definitely living in a fantasy.

You appear to be trying to redefine the definition of words depending on the correctness of your personal theological opinions.This would be stupid. But no "assumption" exists. I say that I have no evidence that any nose-jewelery contravenes the laws of nature. Therefore I provisionally class nose-jewelery as natural. Show me evidence to the contrary. And when a person is too stupid or too wrong to argue against what I am actually saying, it's quite common for them to retreat into an insane halfwitted fantasy world in which they make up some ludicrous fantasy about what I'm saying and then try to argue against their idiotic fantasy about my beliefs which they've made up in their crazy little minds because they are too stupid and pathetic and wrong to argue against anything that I have actually said.Now, given that we apparently disagree about what I think, which is more likely:(1) I know what my opinions are, and you don't.(2) You know what my opinions are, and I don't.Think about this carefully, because if you go for option (2) you are mentally ill and should seek psychiatric help.

I think slevesque's point is clear enough. If someone goes around raising the dead and healing the blind and so forth, and if that person attributes his powers to Yahweh, then we'd need a darn good reason to say that his powers had some other cause.Slevesque is not asserting that we should take the premises as true. If I understand him, he's just asserting that if the two premises were true, then in default of contrary evidence we should accept the conclusion.Perhaps I have misunderstood slevesque's point, in which case I'm sure that he'll say so.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Because it might be completely untrue.Suppose you said: "IF my username is IAMWRONGABOUTEVERYTHING, then all pigs have wings".People would call you on that, of course. They'd point out that your premise is wrong, and your conclusion is wrong, and your logic is wrong ... and then you could get on your highest of all horses and ask: "Why do I need to provide evidence for an "IF" statement?"You need at the very least to provide a genuine logical connection between the "if" clause and the "then" clause.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.