What is supernatural?

I would define "supernatural" as an adjective which describes an entity which can exist outside of nature. Such an entity is not necessarily excluded from existing within nature, but retains the possibility of leaving nature. I don't fault science for not being able to examine something beyond its abilities. However, I do not think that science is the only way to obtain valid knowledge.From the The nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science": Science is based completely upon the law of cause & effect. Where both the cause and effect cannot be examined, science cannot operate. By definition, we cannot examine causes that are supernatural, so when the supernatural is involved, science can't be.From "The Mythical Bible": M-w online defines supernatural as: "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe."The definition doesn't say something supernatural is outside of nature; it says it is of an order outside of nature. The order is outside of nature, not the entity.

In the same way that a human can enter/leave a lake at will, but a fish can't. By following scientific and rational principles as closely as possible for a given situation. Take a lake. There are fish in the lake, and they cannot leave it; they are aquatic. The only things the fish can observe are those which occur in the water. Along comes a fisherman, who is capable of being outside the lake; he is "superaquatic." The fisherman is not affected by any of the causes in the lake, but he can cause a lure in the lake to move, with no cause visible inside the lake. What if one of the said entities created those laws? Couldn't that being be part of, or not part of, those laws it he wished? Yeah, good point. I see what you mean by supernatural now, and your definition is aligned with the definition in the dictionary. Supernatural, as I understand it now, means completely seperate from nature. That is not how I concieve God, however, so I need another word.For our debate I will define the word "preternatural" (although in reality it is a synonym of supernatural) as "an adjective which describes an entity which can exist outside of nature, but is not excluded frome entering nature in whole or in part." That is how I conceive God; so that is the concept I will be defending. I am quite sure you think there can be no preternatural being, but I will be more than happy to show you wrong.

The fish/fisherman analogy was flawed; let me try another.Say you are a game programmer. You create a virtual world, with a complete set of "physical" laws, and a bunch of characters running around. You could design a character for yourself, and program it appropriately so it would not be restricted by the laws governing everything else.Whenever you wanted, you could create an instance of your character and take part in the world you created. If you desired, you could behave as if you were under the laws, and the other characters couldn't tell the difference. But you would also be able to behave without regard to the laws, and even delete the instance of your character and "flit" out of the world you created.Does that make more sense?

I agree that much of what was once thought to be supernatural is actually due to naturalistic processes, and I understand the possibility that what I believe to be supernatural is merely naturalistic phenomenon.My belief in a supernatural God is mainly because I believe the new testament miracles involving Jesus to have actually occured, and Jesus claimed to be God. It is possible that Jesus was merely a being with access to more dimensions than we have access to, and was lying about being God. However, I think he told the truth, and I believe him.

If the designer wanted, he could go through the game, pausing it each instant, and create an instance of himself however he wanted, without respect to any laws. Sort of like drawing special effects onto a film reel frame by frame. The special effects are subject to no laws, only the whim of the artist.The point is, the designer, or artist, can do whatever they want. There are no laws in their respective worlds which they must obey.Does that change things?

---

"People who think they know everything annoy those of that do" - t-shirt

I can't claim for sure. However, what I can do is say that something is completely, entirely unexplicable by our current knowledge of nature, and that a naturalistic explanation for it is unfathomable. Theoretically possible, but unfathomable. In that case I am comfortable (tentatively) believing in the supernatural, even though I don't know for sure.

Actually, I have, but not recently. I used the word "instance" not in reference to an object (programming sense), but an object(real world sense). You could create a game such that it could be paused, and you (the programmer, not the characters) could manipulate (or create) the objects (wire frame models and stuff) in an unpredetermined way. Whether or not God is subject to rules aside of logic is unknowable. I can't come up with analogies where a creator doesn't have laws governing it, but that doesn't mean there can't be such a creator. The created world is a subset of the real world, but that does not mean the created world could observe any of the real world. Could an sentient AI program running in your computer see your face without access to a camera? Could it deduce anything about the nature of the real world on its own, without you telling it anything?

What I meant by "unfathomable" was imaginable; there are not any naturalistic theories I can imagine that could be plausible. Either I am right or I merely have mental limitations; I am not claiming any problems with science because I cannot imagine something.

Assuming free will, no, it doesn't. Aha! An analogy using the imagination could be a perfect(or at least pretty good) analogy. It is ironic that I was unable to imagine an analogy. Oh well...Here goes: You create a world in your imagination (like the one in the game). You are holding all the characters to a set of laws, but at any instant you can change the properties (spatial properties in adition to physical properties) of any object, you can create objects, or even change the rules of the world.Does that work, Crashfrog?P.S. Thanks, Ifen, I wouldn't have thought of that.

I find the hypothetical concept plausible, but once it gets to the real world it doesn't work. You are right, I should have said I don't find any current naturalistic explanations accurate.

With God being omnipotent, I can see no fundamental difference between my analogy and reality. If God is omnipotent, he can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, in the same way you can do whatever you want in your imagination.[edited to change "omniscient" to "omnipotent"]This message has been edited by JT, 08-20-2004 12:14 AM

What does 'ego' mean? Does that mean an individual's consciousness?What do you mean that it is imaginary? Are you saying that we are imagining that we have consciousness? Appeal to authority. Or rather, appeal to poet. Either way it is a fallacy. Are you saying that we are imagining the world? And that the supernatural is a figment of that imaginary construct?I don't understand. HELP!!!

By "appeal to poet," I was just joking. I understood what you were doing. Sorry for appearing to be excesively pedantic. Are you just saying that our perception of reality is filtered by the abilities of our senses/mind, or are you meaning more than that? What if IT was a soul? In that case, spirit would bring people to life in the same way actors do to characters.

Ah, so it isn't a perfect analogy in respect to God. But it is just an analogy, not the real thing. If God is omnipotent, he just has to will something to be done, and it is. There is no fundamental difference between him daydreaming (if he does) or commanding something to happen; there are no laws regarding either.

I think I understand you. You are saying that it is almost like we create our matrix? I believe "soul" is the cause of consciousness, but not consciousness itself. I mean the christian concept of a conscious, spirititual being integral to each person - a soul. I do not understand what "spiritual" is, or how it can be combined with the natural, though. But that is more a problem of my imaginatory capabilities than with the concept. I believe that consciousness is something God gives to souls, which are coupled to humans. I do not believe that consciousness is itself a fundamental property of the universe - I believe it is a fundamental part of God, who is responsable for the universe.