What is "supernatural"

[Angel]

One common objection that I get in regards to the supernatural is that it has no reasonable meaning. One specific objection is that the definition of the supernatural contradicts what nature means. Some skeptics who make this claim even go as far as saying that everything is natural, and claims of anything being supernatural are just superstition and thus misunderstood or unknown natural phenomena. With this in mind, I will attempt to establish a coherent definition for the supernatural along with 4 criteria points to further elaborate on that definition. I will also define "nature" since the supernatural is defined in terms of it. Keep in mind this is more about "meaning" and not necessarily proving the existence of. After all, having a good definition for some thing should be the first step since only then you can know what it is that you need to prove, if provable. I'll leave it up to you guys to let me know whether or not if my definition is coherent or unreasonable.

Definitions:
Supernatural: any place, person (or being), or phenomena that is not of or from nature nor restricted by its laws.

Nature: The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.



Criteria (further elaboration on key parts of my definition and the supernatural in general):

1. Any person, place, or thing that's not from nature. Some may say that when God visits Earth, or more generally the natural world, He's natural at that point. I disagree, just because God is in nature, that doesn't mean He's from nature.

2. Not restricted to the laws of nature. Something would be call supernatural if it was able to violate an *authentic* or *true* law of nature. The words "authentic" or "true" are emphasized to indicate that a supernatural event is is the breaking of a *true* law of nature not simply just a product of misunderstanding the laws of nature or ignorance of a law of nature. If it's an *authentic* or *true* law of nature, then it would be an actual correct law of nature that was broken.

3. Immaterial. This is a tricky criteria since critics would say logic or any other concept is immaterial; does that therefore make it supernatural? To solve this issue for the time being I have considered restricting this criteria to only applying to immaterial *beings* and not just anything immaterial.
*As an exception, I'd also say that some supernatural events can also be observed. For example, Jesus walking on water would be an example of what a supernatural event that we could observe. You'd know this was supernatural by considering my criteria #2 which is right before this one.*

4. Not explainable as a law of nature. I don't believe that science has to be only a pursuit of knowledge under the paradigm of naturalism. Therefore, science in the future may choose to openly explore supernatural aspects and potentially gain some understanding of how the supernatural works, enough to class something as being supernatural. That is, it wouldn't fall into the category of any of the laws of nature. This would be like explaining something to be immaterial.

[Angel]

Going back to your initial definition, you still don't have an example of anything you've listed. Nothing that is not from nature, nothing that breaks a law of nature, nothing immaterial and nothing that can't be explained as a law of nature (And I'm not even sure how one would gauge that, as even if something can't be explained now, if it is ever explained then it is removed from the running).

Without anything that qualifies, it's still a meaningless term, fancy new definition or not.

A definition doesn't have to apply to real things or to things that actually exists in reality. That is why the word "myth" has a definition that people understand and yet it does not relate to anything real or at least proven. The basic criteria for a definition is that it gives you a picture of what something is (not necessarily that it exists) and to do so coherently which I've done by showing how my defintion isn't contradictory. The principle behind my definition and the meaning/criteria are still valid since you could use it to identify something supernatural. You'd know that a ghost or a spirit would be supernatural for instance since they are "immaterial beings" which is one of my criteria.

[Angel]

Logic is a man-made tool used to evaluate claims or arguments. Logic is part of natural world in that we use it but that is not to say that nature uses it to regulate the natural world (this is almost like the distinction between inorganic and organic or man-made and nature made). I wouldn't call a law of logic a law of nature no more than I would call Ockham’s Razor a law of nature. Both are only tools used to obtain knowledge about the laws of nature, they are not the laws of nature themselves.


Apart from the first point I just made, I’ll explain two more points on why logic is not a law of nature and why that is assumptuous. If it were true that logic was a part of the laws of nature, then violating a law of logic would be violating a law of nature by implication. This also means that everything in nature would have to be logical and there’d be no room for any irrational thought from anyone. Yet, we have the ability to irrationally think, which means that we’re breaking a law of nature which additionally proves a supernatural.

As to your above argument that were it a law it could not be broken... well, you're right. A contradiction cannot occur so the law will never be broken. The rest isn't even law, it's determining whether or not we should find a certain course of reasoning valid and sound.

This getting a bit off topic though, as whether or not it is a law of nature or a human concept logic is still fully natural.

Except that there is a contradiction. If logic actually applies to the laws of nature, then that means irrational thinking, which we have the ability to do, is a contradiction or a violation of logic and by implication a violation of the laws of nature since logic is also a law of nature. This would actually prove the supernatural (breaking a law of nature) if that were the case.

[Cathar1950]

Logic is a man-made tool used to evaluate claims or arguments. Logic is part of natural world in that we use it but that is not to say that nature uses it to regulate the natural world (this is almost like the distinction between inorganic and organic or man-made and nature made). I wouldn't call a law of logic a law of nature no more than I would call Ockham’s Razor a law of nature. Both are only tools used to obtain knowledge about the laws of nature, they are not the laws of nature themselves.


Apart from the first point I just made, I’ll explain two more points on why logic is not a law of nature and why that is assumptuous. If it were true that logic was a part of the laws of nature, then violating a law of logic would be violating a law of nature by implication. This also means that everything in nature would have to be logical and there’d be no room for any irrational thought from anyone. Yet, we have the ability to irrationally think, which means that we’re breaking a law of nature which additionally proves a supernatural.

As to your above argument that were it a law it could not be broken... well, you're right. A contradiction cannot occur so the law will never be broken. The rest isn't even law, it's determining whether or not we should find a certain course of reasoning valid and sound.

This getting a bit off topic though, as whether or not it is a law of nature or a human concept logic is still fully natural.

Except that there is a contradiction. If logic actually applies to the laws of nature, then that means irrational thinking, which we have the ability to do, is a contradiction or a violation of logic and by implication a violation of the laws of nature since logic is also a law of nature. This would actually prove the supernatural (breaking a law of nature) if that were the case.

Logic like mathematics is a human construct.
There are also laws of syntax which we acquire along with language seem to have also a biological bases. There is rational but all non-rationality is irrational and reason comes into play when we ask or look for explanation.
Your whole line of reasoning about logic is muddled.

[TheMessage]

Going back to your initial definition, you still don't have an example of anything you've listed. Nothing that is not from nature, nothing that breaks a law of nature, nothing immaterial and nothing that can't be explained as a law of nature (And I'm not even sure how one would gauge that, as even if something can't be explained now, if it is ever explained then it is removed from the running).

Without anything that qualifies, it's still a meaningless term, fancy new definition or not.

A definition doesn't have to apply to real things or to things that actually exists in reality. That is why the word "myth" has a definition that people understand and yet it does not relate to anything real or at least proven. The basic criteria for a definition is that it gives you a picture of what something is (not necessarily that it exists) and to do so coherently which I've done by showing how my defintion isn't contradictory. The principle behind my definition and the meaning/criteria are still valid since you could use it to identify something supernatural. You'd know that a ghost or a spirit would be supernatural for instance since they are "immaterial beings" which is one of my criteria.

Ok, so a definition doesn't need to apply to anything, but in this case there isn't even a need for it. Myth applies to ancient religions or folklore, things we know to be fictional and we use this to designate them as such. But when discussing a unicorn, also fictional, why can't we just say it's natural? It doesn't exist anyways, and if it did it would come from natural processes. Even in a fictional context your defintion doesn't seem all that useful. I guess the best we can do is 'streamline' it, so I now take objection to your criteria of 'immaterial being'.

Ghost are an interesting topic, so let's switch to that. Why is an immaterial being even considered supernatural to you? Without knowledge of how they came to be, the rational thing to do is just assume that they are nature. Energy is immaterial and natural, why can't ghosts just be energy?

[TheMessage]

Logic is a man-made tool used to evaluate claims or arguments. Logic is part of natural world in that we use it but that is not to say that nature uses it to regulate the natural world (this is almost like the distinction between inorganic and organic or man-made and nature made). I wouldn't call a law of logic a law of nature no more than I would call Ockham’s Razor a law of nature. Both are only tools used to obtain knowledge about the laws of nature, they are not the laws of nature themselves.


Apart from the first point I just made, I’ll explain two more points on why logic is not a law of nature and why that is assumptuous. If it were true that logic was a part of the laws of nature, then violating a law of logic would be violating a law of nature by implication. This also means that everything in nature would have to be logical and there’d be no room for any irrational thought from anyone. Yet, we have the ability to irrationally think, which means that we’re breaking a law of nature which additionally proves a supernatural.

As to your above argument that were it a law it could not be broken... well, you're right. A contradiction cannot occur so the law will never be broken. The rest isn't even law, it's determining whether or not we should find a certain course of reasoning valid and sound.

This getting a bit off topic though, as whether or not it is a law of nature or a human concept logic is still fully natural.

Except that there is a contradiction. If logic actually applies to the laws of nature, then that means irrational thinking, which we have the ability to do, is a contradiction or a violation of logic and by implication a violation of the laws of nature since logic is also a law of nature. This would actually prove the supernatural (breaking a law of nature) if that were the case.

There is no physical contradiction merely the idea (Which is physical) of a contradiction, and yes I know that sounds just plain stupid.

Try this, picture a round square. Picture yourself raising your right arm while also not raising your right arm. You cannot even fathom these things.

Irrational thinking isn't in itself a physical contradiction. There aren't any contradictions in nature.

To take a different path with this, are there any unicorns in nature? No, but I bet you can imagine one. Though the idea itself is a physical, chemical reaction in your brain, the interpretation of that reaction is in a sense apart from reality.

[Angel]

Ok, so a definition doesn't need to apply to anything, but in this case there isn't even a need for it. Myth applies to ancient religions or folklore, things we know to be fictional and we use this to designate them as such. But when discussing a unicorn, also fictional, why can't we just say it's natural? It doesn't exist anyways, and if it did it would come from natural processes. Even in a fictional context your defintion doesn't seem all that useful. I guess the best we can do is 'streamline' it, so I now take objection to your criteria of 'immaterial being'.

Ghost are an interesting topic, so let's switch to that. Why is an immaterial being even considered supernatural to you? Without knowledge of how they came to be, the rational thing to do is just assume that they are nature. Energy is immaterial and natural, why can't ghosts just be energy?

Why can't energy fit my criteria? Energy isn't an immaterial "being".

I think you accept at least that the supernatural could just be a definition for fictional things or rather a type of fictional thing. However, if a being exists outside of the material world or is immaterial, etc, then that would relate to a non-fiction or real supernatural thing existing. This is in line with what I said since the beginning, definitions don't necessarily prove existence, they are just like descriptions of what something is or means. For example, I have never seen a unicorn in real life but I still know what one is if I could understand or have a picture of what you described. In reference to why unicorns aren't supernatural though, they aren't described as being able to violate a law of nature.

[Angel]

Logic like mathematics is a human construct.
There are also laws of syntax which we acquire along with language seem to have also a biological bases. There is rational but all non-rationality is irrational and reason comes into play when we ask or look for explanation.
Your whole line of reasoning about logic is muddled.

I don't know about a biological basis but I know there's a cognitive basis which is more of a psychological. My only point in arguing what you were responding to is to place a distinction between the purpose of a law of nature and the purpose of logic. The laws of nature control and regulate our world and surely logic doesn't. Logic is just a tool just as science is, they're not laws of nature.

[Angel]

There is no physical contradiction merely the idea (Which is physical) of a contradiction, and yes I know that sounds just plain stupid.

Try this, picture a round square. Picture yourself raising your right arm while also not raising your right arm. You cannot even fathom these things.

Irrational thinking isn't in itself a physical contradiction. There aren't any contradictions in nature.

To take a different path with this, are there any unicorns in nature? No, but I bet you can imagine one. Though the idea itself is a physical, chemical reaction in your brain, the interpretation of that reaction is in a sense apart from reality.

You mentioned in an earlier post in this thread (pg. 2) that ideas are physical.

May 1, 2009; 7: 15 a.m.

Logic is not tangible.

Logic isn't some sort of thing, either. Logic is a fundamental aspect of our reality, a law of nature so to speak. It's a property of the universe.

Our ideas about logic are tangible, as they are just chemical reactions within the brain.

So given that, we have the ability to develop illogical ideas. If ideas are physical and logic is a law of nature, then our ability to develop illogical ideas are physical contradictions logic OR nature since logic is a part of the laws of nature.

[Angel]

So given that, we have the ability to develop illogical ideas. If ideas are physical and logic is a law of nature, then our ability to develop illogical ideas are physical contradictions logic OR nature since logic is a part of the laws of nature.

There is a typo here and I couldn't edit the original post, so here goes:

Last sentence: physical contradictions *of* logic OR nature

[Gonzo]

If a being exists outside of nature, then how is it able to interact with natural things? For us to observe it in any form (through any of our senses), it would need to be a part of nature. Our senses interact with physical material things, if something is immaterial, then it won't give off photons or whatever else so we can't even see it. Immaterial things are of no consequence to our reality since they can never effect us.