What is supernatural?

He is supernatural, a spirit. He can infact intervene/interact with this world. If we assume he created this universe, then yes - we can assume he can interact, because he would have had to when making the universe. If he started/caused it, then he can interact.If I kick start my motorbike, I have to interact with it, yet you will not find me in the motorcycle. I can interact without being a part of it.

I have seen some paropyschologists and investigative type chaps try and fathom the meaning of ghosts. And despite members of their team being skeptics - they too reported what could only be described as anomolies. "Orbs" etc... A none-believer and his buddy (independent verifier), infact both "seen" a pair of legs that proceeded in disappearing. Whether these events could be attributed to the supernatural would infact require more evidence. The problem is, there could be numerous possible Theories that could explain these phenomena. So, I have atleast been a witness to scientists, trying to get their "hands on" the supernatural, and to be fair --> They were honest and tried hard but they couldn't find enough to confirm or deny anything.So atleast in this case, I can say that science tried but it it didn't have much to work with, so I apreciate the truth of message one. My pennies worth, Thanks.

I can understand your point. I suppose it might be an effort to give meaning to the anomoly, to say "it's supernatural". Amazingly though, spirits have been reported for thousands of years.I associate a persons legs + reported phenomenon as standing a good chance of having something to do with "spirits" but that's just my opinion.

The motorcycle represents the natural. I represent God. Let's say that natural and supernatural are two sides of the same coin. Existence.I still transcend the motorcycle. You won't evidence me in the motorcycle. Let's test your modus ponen if I may Crash.If he can interact with the natural then he's part of it.How is this conditional though? How can you know for sure that his interacting would make him natural? If I interact with my motorbike, it doesn't mean I am part of it. What if the natural is just part of a bigger plain, like the motorbike?Also, nothing is impossible to someone who made everything. I still say your implication is untrue.Are you dismissing the possibility that God could find a way of interacting without becoming it? Maybe if he is unseen, and prods it with a supernatural spatular for example.I mean, natural and supernatural are simple concepts, they may well not in any way sufficiently, describe the truth of this situation. It might be like describing the science of the sun rising and setting, as simply day and night.Fair enough, if you evidence a ghost, then I can see that you can now get your hands on it naturally, but what if you can't evidence the ghost, yet it moves your furniture?Maybe the N and SN are both part of reality.

Or they are both part of the ultimate endeavor. The supernatural world. And natural would evidence supernatural, thanks. But I'm saying he's supernatural only, and can interact with the natural, without becoming it. For example, the Word, though it eventually became flesh ofcourse. Yes, this is what the motorcycle represents. Yet I am not found in it by you. I disagree, despite your explanation.If I can interact with ghosts, by communicating with them, does that mean I am a ghost/supernatural?I am not buying your conditional implication because I don't think it's conditional.Also, |"God cannot" is trumped by; "Nothing shall be impossible with God".Stick to your guns but I am also.

One which allows God to not be detectable by science yet interact unknowingly in this world, unless he chooses to make it known. But a motorcycle has many interacting parts. It is full of parts, interacting. I can "start" it and interact with it yet I transcend it. Logically, I have interacted with it yet I am not it. If is self-sufficient, yet you can't locate me, because I'm not a motorcycle. Doesn't it mean that he is supernatural, or not detected naturally?I think he can transcend yet interact without being natural.So, I even agree that you can't really "detect" or lay hands on the supernatural with science. So what with the disagreement? Is it because you are against God?

So if I kick a football through your window, and you look out and no one is there, you can detect me? How do you know whether the gale force wind smashed your window or me?If I put pebbles in the pond, can you detect me in the pond? Who's to say that they were put there naturally or I threw them?If I kickstart my bike, can you detect me in the bike?If God made something happen in the natural, could you detect him? But my substitution for the motorcycle, is the natural. Everything in the universe, and the engine is it's workings. Can you detect me in the engine if I ride/kickstart it? Can't? Even if that's true to human knowledge (limited) then God can have what he darn well wants, nothing is impossible to him. Remember, if he's clever enough to make this universe, then he's gonna have MORE than Crahsfrog's can's and cannots - and he sure as hell isn't going to be limited by what you say.A stiff wind blows you sideways and stops you from falling off a cliff. How can you know whether God influenced the wind or not?What you've just said is that there is no God because we cannot detect him. This is arrogance speaking. You are forgetting what I said, that nothing is impossible with God.If I kick a football through your window - it leaves no detectable trace of my kicking it(cause). I cannot be detected.Now forget "worlds"My substitutions are this;Motorbike; The universe
Me; God.That is the analogy!