Is the Supernatural Natural?

[man]

The natural and the supernatural are obviously two very different things.

The supernatural exists outside of what we call natural, it is by definition not natural.

If something is not natural calling it unnatural is the same as saying it is not natural.

If god is supernatural then by definition god is unnatural.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

Supernatural could simply refer to natural things that we don't yet understand?

No, things we don't yet understand are called things that we don't yet understand, not that we don't yet understand them so they must be supernatural.

Saying that something is supernatural is saying that you understand something when you don't.

Sounds like an argument about semantics to me. I wouldn't need to have this argument with you in general because if you don't like the term "Supernatural" I would be more than willing to trade it in for a phrase like "Things we don't yet understand".

I don't see the point in arguing semantics.

If that's your argument here, then sure, it all depends on what you accept as the meaning of the term.

If you demand that the term "supernatural" means something that cannot naturally exist, then it makes sense that the term is useless and cannot refer to anything meaningful.

So your argument ends up being an argument about the uselessness of a word rather than being an argument about the validity of any other concept, such as things we don't yet understand.

[Yahu]

[Replying to post 1 by man]

I don't see your scriptural evidence. Maybe your in the wrong subforum. This subforum is for debating theology not raging against Christianity or God.

[man]

[Replying to post 12 by Yahu]

Does the word supernatural appear anywhere in the bible?

[man]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

Supernatural could simply refer to natural things that we don't yet understand?

No, things we don't yet understand are called things that we don't yet understand, not that we don't yet understand them so they must be supernatural.

Saying that something is supernatural is saying that you understand something when you don't.

Sounds like an argument about semantics to me. I wouldn't need to have this argument with you in general because if you don't like the term "Supernatural" I would be more than willing to trade it in for a phrase like "Things we don't yet understand".

I don't see the point in arguing semantics.

If that's your argument here, then sure, it all depends on what you accept as the meaning of the term.

If you demand that the term "supernatural" means something that cannot naturally exist, then it makes sense that the term is useless and cannot refer to anything meaningful.

So your argument ends up being an argument about the uselessness of a word rather than being an argument about the validity of any other concept, such as things we don't yet understand.

Maybe all the people using the word supernatural to describe something like god are using the wrong word?

[Divine Insight]

Maybe all the people using the word supernatural to describe something like god are using the wrong word?

I personally think that focusing on a single term like this is a waste of everyone's time. Just ask the person what they mean when they use that term and try to work with the explanation they offer.

We didn't invent words as weapons to beat each other over the head with. The idea of language and words is that they are TOOLS to serve as communication. If a particular isn't working for you, then in the spirit of communication you should simply ask the person to clarify what they mean by the term and then try to work with that.

I'm not a strong supporter of using semantics as a weapon. Words are meant to help us communicate, not to be used as weapons to hinder the exchange of ideas.

[man]

[Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]

It's not semantics it's concepts, god exists beyond what we call nature no one argues that.

Perhaps the problem is the term unnatural is seen as a bad thing and I don't think that is necessarily true.

The other problem I see is that people ascribe the term supernatural to god and as far as I know the word supernatural does not appear anywhere in the bible so maybe religious people are taking liberties with their interpretations that they should not.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 2 by catnip]

I find your argument thoroughly unsatisfying.

Ghosts are also unnatural, no amount of explaining will change that.

You should read more carefully. It is scientifically feasible that ghosts are merely an imprint left behind on an object or location that replays much like a tape recording. I would suggest something along the lines of quantum entanglement. You failed to see past superstition. Heaven forbid that a person look seriously at a phenomenon that is widely reported. That would be scientific!

So, with a wave of your hand you dismiss the fact that there is a supernatural--a level of the natural that is beyond the level of the natural that we all see and interact with. But there was once a supercontinent--not just a continent, but one massive continent in this world and even though none of us will ever know it, it was and it is no more.

[man]

[Replying to post 17 by catnip]

There are levels of the natural that are beyond the level of the natural that we all see and interact with, one recent example is dark matter.

Just because it is beyond the level of natural that we all see and interact with certainly does not make dark matter unnatural or supernatural and I am sorry to have to tell you this, but ghosts are NOT scientifically feasible.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 17 by catnip]

There are levels of the natural that are beyond the level of the natural that we all see and interact with, one recent example is dark matter.

Possibly. Just as "UFO" doesn't always indicate alien visitors and it might be something more mundane such as a drone.

Just because it is beyond the level of natural that we all see and interact with certainly does not make dark matter unnatural or supernatural and I am sorry to have to tell you this, but ghosts are NOT scientifically feasible.

That is what you have decided to believe. Being skeptical does not equal being scientific. One thing is for sure: there is an explanation for what people think or experience as ghosts and there may be more than one. At any rate, it is far too common an experience to simply claim that they are "NOT scientifically feasible"--whatever that means! Even if it is a psychological effect from infrasound--it is (a) being investigated by real scientists who believe there must be an explanation and (b) it is repeatable and (c) it is feasible. I use that example because it is recent research and currently thought to have some merit. It was feasible enough that they bothered to emit infrasound into a concert and see the effects on the attendees.

Sorry that I hit a hot button issue for you and you missed the point that I am rather inclined to be scientifically minded. EVERYTHING we experience, that is part of the human experience is within the scope of science to investigate.

[man]

[Replying to post 19 by catnip]

Can you give me some links to where ghosts are explained as scientifically feasible?

I would like to read more about where you got this idea.