What is Supernatural?

Lots of different answers already, i'll adress some of the others in this reply as well.For my part, 'supernatural' can have a definition that is very intuitive just by looking at it. ''anything that is outisde of nature''. By nature I mean our space-time universe, which is the only place where we can do science. I thin this definition is inadequate because a supernatural intervention in nature (ex: a miracle) would be detectable. 'Empirically provable' would be better I think.Onifre said this: Even though Straggler's definition is a bit faulty in my opinion, your position still isn't very thought out. You are basically saying that something that is emprically undetectable cannot be claimed to exist. But a simple counter-example will show that this doesn't make sense: the multiverse. Multiple universes outside our own is empirically undetectable, and yet they are claimed to exist.Larni said: This definition looks good in theory, but in reality it doesn't stand up. I know it wouldn't include the christian belief in God in general since many would say that they do have evidence (ranging from historical up to personnal evidence) for their belief. That this evidence is judged to be 'right' or 'wrong' or 'insufficient' by you or somebody else would be besides the point. From their POV it is evidence, and in fact if they were to accept your definition of supernatural, then God wouldn't be included in their anymore.In fact, imagine a second that you yourself found evidence that God exists. For example you are witness of a true miracle or that God speaks to you and tells you what will happen in the future and it does happen or whatever I don't know, something happens and you know believe that God exists based on this. Then if you were to stick to your definition of supernatural, God would no longer be considered as supernatural ...Coyote said: Ok, I'm bad at identifying fallacies, but isn't this a bit of begging the question ? You aren't really giving an accurate definition of 'supernatural', just simply saying how you perceive supernatural belief, and then define it this way.Someone who believes in the supernatural could say that their increasing knowledge of the natural world would constitute evidence that God exists. Would it then be OK for this person to define 'supernatural' as 'what is shown to exist from oru knowledge of nature' ? Of course not, this would be absurd in my opinion.The thing is to try to simply define what is 'supernatural'.Edited by slevesque, : added: Larni said

Hi Onifre, Many physicists will say they believe it exists. I'm not against the idea that it exists, maybe I will be convinced of it further down in my math-physics education. I was neither in that other thread, neither did I equate God with multiverse and string theory ... Universe-Multiverse, yeah the construction of the word itself sometimes gives us a general idea of it's meaning.Of course, we can see one. But it goes further then that: we can only observe/detect/experiment in this one universe.Multiverse is the logical result of string theory, which is a mathematical construction, an amazing one at that. [/qs]However: supernatural. You claim it's ''anything that is outside of nature'' or our space-time. In other words, nonsense. You have explained it using a collection of words that mean nothing.[/qs]I proposed a definition of the word that comes from it's latin construction.I find it interesting, that despite an arrogant tone (frankly, you didn't give me this impression at all the first time we engaged in a discussion here on evc ...) you haven't even tried to give a definition of the word ''supernatural'' ... Then I guess we need a theoretical physicist to explain to my poor illiterate-self what outside of spacetime means ... Our universe is detectable, therefore I can claim it exists.
Other universes are undetectable, therefore I cannot claim they exist.Only if the existence of our universe is proven to be directly linked to the existence of these other universes (if they do not exist, then we do not exist) can the existence of our own universe be evidence for the existence of these other universes. Since this link is far from being proven, the detection of our universe will simply mean that our universe exists. Nah, my definition of the word 'supernatural' comes from it's latin origin.-SlevesqueBTW. I won't continue this discussion if you don't tone it down a bit. I am not obliged to feel your condescendance in your posts.

Wooh, talk about a minor clarification hehe.Ok, so if I understood correctly, then I don't want to refer to multiverse as alternate realities etc.I want to talk about our space-time universe, which has such and such physical constants (speed of light, mass of electron, etc). And when I talk about the other universes, I'm talking about those with other physical constants for example. And when I used 'multiverse' I was talking about the collective assembly of all these universes including ours.What would then be the correct terminology for this ? Because the terminology I used and described just above is the one that was used by Hubert Reeves (the most recognized physicists to come out of our little province of Quebec) when he gave us a conference about the multiverse ...

Okok, I understand. you weren't defining the word supernatural but simply alluding to it's origin.I don't disagree with your explanation of it's origin. It is true that many beliefs came from trying to explain natural phenomenons with spiritual entities etc.But I do think this is a very limited view of what causes spiritual/supernatural beliefs. Many of them came from the need to give a purpose to life, a direction to what we live. Others were to explain what happens after we die. I think we'll agree that in most cases, a mixture of all these is at the origin of supernatural beliefs.Finally, we must not forget that the christian belief in God has another source; miracles. Events that contradict known laws of nature. water-to-wine, blind that see (without eye surgery hehe) and of course resurection. These aren't natural phenomenons that were misinterpreted as supernatural, but rather naturally impossible singular events that cannot have happened within the laws of nature.This is all from my POV as a christian. You would probably say that this 4th source is just humans making up stories.

I understand that you figure there is a need for a word that includes everything that exists, space-time and God if he does exist.I don't think that highjacking, if I can use that expression, the word nature by redefining it to suit this need is a good thing. the current terminology of natural and supernatural is needed to distinguish between things that are subject to the laws of our universe with, well anything else that could exist outside of it.Besides, if we were to use your definition of the word nature, what would 'laws of nature' mean ? they don't affect God, so how could he be included in 'nature' ? ...

Ok, gotcha. I totally agree that there is never enough clarifications on terminology and semantics. I have been in many discussions around here that just derail on word definition etc. and so I'm glad if your intervention prevented that here.

Yeah well we were discussing the different origins supernatural believes could have. The christian belief principally stems from the allegedly viewing of these miracles by those who first started christianity.Of course, I didn't view these miracles myself. And so me taking a stance on if they did happen or not is more complicated and more thought most be put into it. It all comes down to if I think the historical documents in the bible (particularly new testament in the examples I used) are accurate or made up.I think the most simple and accurate example of the tought process involved would be a Jury in the case of a murder. No one was there when it happened except the killer. Neither the judge, nor jury, nor security guard nor anyone else saw it. It does not stop them from coming to form a decision as to if the person accused did it or not. The fact that they weren't there simply means it is going to be harder to take a stance and it won't be 100% sure they are right. But logical deduction will take them a long way in determining what is true or not.Same goes for my position that Jesus really did rise from the dead. I am aware that this thought-process isn't done by 90% of christians probably, who 'just have faith' but unfortunately my own cartesian mind prevents me from doing this, so I gotta take the long road to the same end But I don't want to derail the topic. Since it isn't all about me ...

Good aspect of the issue that I didn't think of.I guess I draw the line where empirical verification isn't possible. And I mean impossible not on the technical level, but on the theoretical level.And so to see if a given thing is inside our universe or not, the simple test is to ask if it can be tested/determined using the scientific method.Can we be physically able to empirically verify what is inside a blak hole ? Probably not, although I'm not sure. (I use 'physically able' in terms of physics, and not biological capability)

If by sure you mean 100% sure, then I can't be sure.But I can be reasonably sure that when a dude comes along and says I am Yahweh's son and starts doing miracles and then dying and resurection, that if I really do think all this really happened I would have to have a strong reason to think something else then Yahweh is responsible for all of this.Besides, if it really is another who is doing all these miracles, I think he should be pretty pissed off that this Yahweh guy is getting all the credit and would let us know about it.

I didn't intend that the miracle-origin of a belief in the supernatural is unique to christianity. Other beliefs can have such an origin I suppose.EDIT: For the other part of your post, would it be off-topic ? (I doN't have time to answer anymore as I got work to do)Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

The difference between supernatural and natural will be a supernatural occurence will contradict a known law of nature.Of course, you point out that we don't know all the laws of nature and this could make it all tricky. But we know one thing about the laws of nature that we haven't discovered yet; they won't contradict a known law. If they are related to another law, they will simply define it better. The discovery of a law will never make a previous law ''dissappear''.And so if I drop an apple a billion times in the same conditions, and it always falls to the ground, but one time it happens to start floating in the air and hits me in the back of the head, I can be pretty sure that it is supernatural because it defied the law of gravity even if the conditions didn't change.And of course, this is all only a definition in a philosophical sense. In a practical sense we are faillible humans, and we may take as supernatural something that is simply an undiscovered law etc. But that we as humans can and will make mistakes about it all cannot be a reason to stop us from defining the supernatural as I think it should be defined, ie outside of nature, our universe and it's laws.

Hi Onifre, A hypothesis is still a statement of belief; you only hypothesis something you believe to be true. Rarely is there a point to want to test somethign you believe isn't true.And it is not based on empirical evidence, but on a mathematical construction for the most part. This may seem a small detail, but it is not. I think it should always be kept in mind when talking about multiverse and string theory.And an example of a proponent of the multiverse idea is Jeffrey Sweerink (yeah I know, not the best example but it's the only name that popped in my head) There is where there is a misconprehension. I agree that there is no outside of reality. The problem is that I'm not equivocating ''nature'' with ''reality''.I define reality as everything that exists. This includes our universe, other universes, multiverses, the interior of black holes, and God if he does exist. This is reality, this englobes everything that is real, as opposed to imaginary, which includes everything that we can imagine but are not real. This would include Harry Potter and his crew, Biblo Baggins and God if he doesn't exist after all.If we define nature as the place where we can do science, experiment, collect data, etc. then this means it refers only to our universe.And so, supernatural, or ''outside of nature'' is everything that is a part of reality, but is not a part of nature.Slevesque

Because I would have to have a reason to think otherwise. I know the skeptical approach to things is a good thing to have, but being over-skeptical makes you fall into irrational thoughts.If I have positive evidence ofr something, there is no need to start thinking that it isn't the case without negative evidence. Of course, I can allude to the possibility of the contrary being true, but depending on the strength of the positive evidence, it may be a 10% chance, or 1%, or 0,1% or 0,000001% of it being the case.It all depends on the evidence you have and how you interpret it. Every alternative can turn out to be true, but will be more unlikely the less you have evidence for it.

We won't argue any longer, maybe what you say is good in theory. But in the practice of things, when a scientists posits a theory, he'll believe in it and defend it until it is proven otherwise. He won't be in the distant mode of 'it's only a possible explanation, mabe it's right or wrong'. Kinda of topic, but their are multiple reasons that I believe nature is not the whole of reality. And again other reasons that make me believe that the Christian God exists. Which is of course, naturalism. Which is of course a statement of belief, a starting axiom in your worldview. And I can understand that, from a naturalistic point of view, 'nature' and 'reality' can be interchanged without much a difference in meaning. But of course, if you are going to do this it will make it difficult to communicate with anybody who is not a naturalist.Of course, the whole issue is to find a correct terminology where all views can be expressed and understood by everyone. Hence my previous post, in which there is a terminology of reality,nature,imaginary,supernatural which can be used to express any given worldview by anyone.Including your, since then you can just say 'I think nature is all of reality'.

Hi Onifre, sorry couldn't answer until now. The whole idea is to get a terminology where every opinion can be expressed clearly. By equivocating nature and reality (as you are again doing here) this is impossible to do. You are here equivocating mehtodological naturalism with naturalism. One is ''don't provide a supernatural explanation to a natural phenomenon'' and the other is the statement that ''only nature exists''.From the words of the rationalwiki:'' this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.'' You do consider that the very person who thought of and embraced the scientific method and methodological naturalism was a christian and believed that God existed (ie not a naturalist) ? Doesn't this ring off alarm bells that the two are not the same ?Once again, I'll reiterate the simple point I want to make: find an acceptable terminology. Basing one around your worldview by equivocating 'nature' and 'reality' and then justifying this naturalistic bias with appeal to methodological naturalism isn't going to cut it.