What is Supernatural?

How about anything that exists (or is claimed to exist) in shared objective reality (i.e. external to the mind of any individual) and yet is inherently empirically undetectable?

Well I would say it cannot be claimed to exist beyond guessing. Not that it cannot exist at all. But I think I agree with your sentiment.However this doesn't stop people claiming that inherently non-empirical things A) Do exist B) Have been somehow experienced C) Are thus "known" to exist or "evidenced" to exist.You know what I think of those claims. But that doesn't stop people making them or conceptualising such things even if they are vague and contradictory in doing so. Well far be it from me to defend the supernaturalists.........But I think we do have a vague concept of what the supernatural is. Even if it is contradictory in terms of how we experience reality and "made up" as you put it.Even made-up concepts can be genuine concepts. I don't think it is true to say that the term supernatural means "nothing...nothing at all".Jeez - I spent the entire ID thread fighting atheists about there being a distinction between ID and creationism and now I am defending the meaningfulness of the term "supernatural" against you. If I am not careful I am going to have to revoke my arch-atheist status!

Absolutely. Oh dude don't get me started!! That was the entire point of Immaterial "Evidence"A thread that I hoped both you and RAZ would take part in but which neither of you chose to do. Beyond phraseology I could not agree more. OK. Do you rememeber when you said that you weren't atheistic about RAZD's god because it existed only in his mind and I agreed with you? (I think we have since established that RAZ doesn't accept that his god is all in his mind but that is irrelevant to this point) Now if someone has a concept of god that they claim exists nowhere but inside their own head I don't think we can say that the concept itself does not exist. To that person it does. Likewise with any wholly internal concept of the supernatural. Spirits which provide comfort and meaning. Gods that provide higher purpose. I think these concepts can exist entirely internally to the mind and even have profound effects on peoples mental state.I just don't think they exist in any reality that could be called objective or shared.Thus I don't think that it is right to say that the term supernatural means "nothing...nothing at all". Yeah I agree. It is utterly contradictory. That was my entire point to RAZ in that "Is My Hypothesis Valid" thread and the Immaterial "Evidence" thread that followed it.But can a concept have meaning internally to ones mind without claiming to be "real" in the objective external sense? Is there a concept of the supernatural that is internal only? Does a concept have to exist in reality to exist as a concept?I think the fact that we all have a vague idea of what we mean by supernatural suggests that we all have an internal concept of what such a thing could be. A concept that we all share to some degree. Even if it is purely fictional. I mean Bilbo Baggins exists as a shared concept surely? Even if he isn't real?Is infinity a concept? Is it "real" in the sense of physically existing in shared external objective reality? Can we define supernatural as a concept without it physically existing in shared external objective reality? The force is strong in you Onifre.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It seems great minds think alike.

I don't know what else to say to you other than that I agree.It seems we both accept that there is a concept of the supernatural that is shared and even agreed upon by all of us who use that term in some vague internal sense?But that at the same time any claim of having actually experienced the supernatural in terms of expereincing things that are external to ones own mind is fraught with contradictions.I think we are essentially on the same page here.

I don't think this is a good definition at all.The constancy of time was a "known law of nature". It just so happened to be proved wrong by relativity. I don't think that made relativity a "supernatural" theory.To me supernatural requires that we invoke something that is not only unable to be explained or contradictory to current understanding. But instead something that is inherently imune to such understanding in some way. For example immune to empirical detection or explanation regardless of technological advancement or understanding.

To play devils advocate - If there is a whole reality immune to empirical detaction that we only experience when we die (for example)....Where does that leave us?

Well I disagree with myself but I wouldn't be much of a devils advocate if I just left it at that would I. Yes. That supernatural part of us. Our soul (or whatever). What if this carreies on experiencing non-physical reality of some sort after we die. Well if your soul incorporates your mind and is able to experience and detect the immaterial then we have solved the mystery of the supernatural.Except tha we have invoked the problem of duality. The mind body problem. But does this matter? Could it be that we are each part material and part immaterial? Yeah well even a devils advocate cannot defend the indefensible. I think we will have to put this down to metaphor. Although I think ICANT genuinely believes in the whole hell as a pit of fire thing so maybe ask him how the hell that works. Unless your soul is equipped with a means of sensing the immaterial reality all around us. Oh don't get me wrong. I think it is complete bollocks. But why is it bollocks? That is the question here.

Well I have some speculative theories. Dreams and mortality. I think truly contemplating a reality that is without ones own consciousness present is next to impossible. We get the concept that we world can carry on without us but actually imagining that? And then dreams that involve those that have passed away can be taken as an indicator that those physically dead are still present in some immaterial way.I think it is true that all studied primitive cultures have had some concept of an afterlife and have placed some importance on dreams. And once you have the concept of the immaterial "spirit" (or whatever) it is only a short step or two to extrapolate that to other aspects of nature in the form of tree spirits, ghosts, gods and the full plethora of the supernatural. Especially when confronted with otherwise inexplicable acts of nature. harshly put. But nevertheless true. I can't maintain my devils advocate attempt because you are saying pretty much the same as I would say in answer to my own questions. Finding the commonalities between religions and examining the anthropological evidence I think is the best means of gaining an answer to that interesting question.

I always knew you were one of the more discerning participants here Interesting stuff. And to further the point in this context - The human psychology that leads to such experiences (i.e. dreams and other wholly subjective experiences) is common to the whole of humanity. So if we are looking for commonality as the best approach to explaining widespread aspects of religious experiences and belief it is the commonality of human psychology and brain physiology that we should be turning to. NOT the claim that there is an undefined common supernatural "something" that various religions are interpreting differently. As seems to be the deistic argument with the whole maps and mountains thing (or the whole blind men and an elephant thing - same difference) Well said. See I can be discerning too. With regard to "What is supernatural?" I think the key difference between the two camps here is that one side just assumes that there is some sort of non-empirical reality and the other considers it to be obvious that all the evidence indicates that the entire concept of non-empirical reality is an entirely human invention. On the believers side we have: (as RAZ put it elsewhere) Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.