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]

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.

One example is if an immaterial being materialize and just long enough to where we'd see it and then dematerialize again. That is what ghosts in stories and anecdotal reports are said to do. That is not to say or prove ghosts existence but just as we understand who Superman is or that he can fly, then surely someone can also understand what I just described as a definition and description. And of course, if ghosts are real, then you'd be able to identify it which would make my definition more than just a mere principle or just something relating only to fiction (or unknown if fiction or non-fiction), to also include real things.

[Angel]

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.

One example is if an immaterial being materialize and just long enough to where we'd see it and then dematerialize again. That is what ghosts in stories and anecdotal reports are said to do. That is not to say or prove ghosts existence but we understand and identify that if it did happen or in fiction even and that's all I intend to establish, defintion-wise ( that is what it is, not if it exists).

[Gonzo]

One example is if an immaterial being materialize and just long enough to where we'd see it and then dematerialize again. That is what ghosts in stories and anecdotal reports are said to do. That is not to say or prove ghosts existence but we understand and identify that if it did happen or in fiction even and that's all I intend to establish, defintion-wise ( that is what it is, not if it exists).

If they "materialize", they are subject to our reality because they would at that point be made of components of our reality which we can observe. If we can observe something, it can be explained through a natural process, since it is part of one.

[Angel]

If they "materialize", they are subject to our reality because they would at that point be made of components of our reality which we can observe. If we can observe something, it can be explained through a natural process, since it is part of one.

I didn't finalize my response to this yet but I might have accidentally press submit. I'll get back to you on your response though if I have an answer. I'm still thinking about it.

[TheMessage]

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.

I never said energy was an immaterial being, I said that ghosts (If they exist) could be composed of energy. This would make them natural immaterial beings, so the criteria of immaterial being may not necessarilly indicate a supernatural being.

[TheMessage]

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.

You missed the word 'about'.

[Angel]

You missed the word 'about'.

We have the ability to develop ideas *about* illogical things as well. That's how some religions started, if you accept that some religions are false and/or illogical.

[Angel]

I never said energy was an immaterial being, I said that ghosts (If they exist) could be composed of energy. This would make them natural immaterial beings, so the criteria of immaterial being may not necessarilly indicate a supernatural being.

Even if ghosts were composed of energy, they could not be made of 100% energy because then all they'd be is energy at that point. You already mentioned that energy and immaterial beings are not the same, since energy isn't a being. Assuming you're right, the aspects of ghosts that are not composed of energy would still leave room for unnatural characteristics. We could also consider that
not all energy is only in the "material" world because God is also an immaterial being that can't said to be natural since He's described as the creator of nature which means He was and can be outside of it. Your explanation also doesn't factor in where these ghosts are said to come from, and the very fact they're surviving in a disembodied state, nor their ability to communicate and to materialize and dematerialize at will which are supernatural related things by definition.

[Angel]

One example is if an immaterial being materialize and just long enough to where we'd see it and then dematerialize again. That is what ghosts in stories and anecdotal reports are said to do. That is not to say or prove ghosts existence but we understand and identify that if it did happen or in fiction even and that's all I intend to establish, defintion-wise ( that is what it is, not if it exists).

If they "materialize", they are subject to our reality because they would at that point be made of components of our reality which we can observe. If we can observe something, it can be explained through a natural process, since it is part of one.

So you don't believe a supernatural occurrence could be an observable event? Not all of my criterias are necessarily connected as in one relying on the other. In some instances, just one criteria alone can satisfy something being supernatural by definition. So although, something may not be immaterial, it still may be supernatural by violating a law of nature. Someone walking on water or flying like SUPERman would be an example of a supernatural event that could be observed.

[TheMessage]

You missed the word 'about'.

We have the ability to develop ideas *about* illogical things as well. That's how some religions started, if you accept that some religions are false and/or illogical.

That's my point exactly, the word about signifies that we can form ideas about illogical things but that the ideas themselves are not either illogical or contradictory. Contradiction is the real sticking point here and you've yet to demonstrate how one can occur in nature.