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]

It has worked thus far and there is no "proof" to the contrary which would constitute further study into the matter. We deal with what we have evidence for, and right now the evidence points towards a materialistic universe, perhaps that idea will change (when new evidence is brought to the table.

I agree with you to a degree. We have evidence that matter exists in the Universe but where I differ from you is to what extent. I have seen no logical nor evidential basis to prove the claim that everything in the Universe is of matter.

How do you know there is a spiritual part of the universe? What proof do you have?

I have no proof of a spiritual part of the Universe. I only mentioned that to say that there is no contradiction even if we said the Universe is all that exists (as an alternative to saying that matter is all that exists).

If the scientific method can be used on it and it can be explained, there is no reason to put it under any definition other than "natural", since it would say the exact same thing science does about any other property of the universe. "Well under this set of circumstances <blank> happens anytime we do this repeatable action and currently the evidence we have for why it happens makes the likely reason for its occurrence blah blah blah"

I would agree with you if something was explained using the "current" form of the scientific method, then it should be natural, since the scientific method is tailored for materialism and what we can see and observe, etc. I think lots of theists focus on examining the supernatural by trying to discover new observations and facts but I think the key also lies on modifying the philosophy behind scientific method. The only exception I see where scientific explanation wouldn't always lead to a natural classification is when something can have two different causes. For example, there may be a supernatural or natural origin to a religion. Of course, scientists could discover the natural explanation but that is not to say that all religions would have natural causes.

It can't exist in our universe if it is immaterial, because then it wouldn't take up space, so it would have to be in another dimension. If it doesn't take up space, it definitely can't be in the same spot, that defies basic logic.

Good point. One thing I can think of is that they (the ghost) can be in some invisible form (energy?) that we currently can't detect. In other words, ghosts can go from materializing to invisibility some times rather than going from materialization straight to an immaterial state.

And what evidence do you have that ghosts exist?

I have no logical nor scientific proof of ghosts but there is some evidence. I would have to look through some of the paranormal researchers video and audio (EVP) footage. Of course, when I can, I'll try to find some of the more honest researchers as far as I can tell, rather than those who are dishonest and obviously looking only for hype or tv/book ratings (not to say that everyone who publicizes their work have that motive).

[Gonzo]

I agree with you to a degree. We have evidence that matter exists in the Universe but where I differ from you is to what extent. I have seen no logical nor evidential basis to prove the claim that everything in the Universe is of matter.

Well all we've dealt with in the universe thus far is either matter or energy so there is no reason to assume otherwise until we have evidence, otherwise one could follow any claim to the ends of the time on the sole basis we haven't proved it wrong.

I have no proof of a spiritual part of the Universe. I only mentioned that to say that there is no contradiction even if we said the Universe is all that exists (as an alternative to saying that matter is all that exists).

Why would you think anything to the contrary of what we have unless you have some form of proof? Like I said earlier, if you do that, you can believe anything just because it has not been proven false.

I would agree with you if something was explained using the "current" form of the scientific method, then it should be natural, since the scientific method is tailored for materialism and what we can see and observe, etc. I think lots of theists focus on examining the supernatural by trying to discover new observations and facts but I think the key also lies on modifying the philosophy behind scientific method. The only exception I see where scientific explanation wouldn't always lead to a natural classification is when something can have two different causes. For example, there may be a supernatural or natural origin to a religion. Of course, scientists could discover the natural explanation but that is not to say that all religions would have natural causes.

If we can measure it, we would you the scientific method, if we can't measure it, then it's pointless to try and study it since there is nothing we can learn about it. If we can observe it, then it can be measured, this is because our senses translate various forms of energy into what we perceive. How can there be an alternative means? Can you think of one?

I have no logical nor scientific proof of ghosts but there is some evidence. I would have to look through some of the paranormal researchers video and audio (EVP) footage. Of course, when I can, I'll try to find some of the more honest researchers as far as I can tell, rather than those who are dishonest and obviously looking only for hype or tv/book ratings (not to say that everyone who publicizes their work have that motive).

I'll be happy to look them over. The prospect of another world or afterlife, be that as it may, is actually quite appealing to me, I just have no reason to believe such a thing exists.

[Angel]

I agree with you to a degree. We have evidence that matter exists in the Universe but where I differ from you is to what extent. I have seen no logical nor evidential basis to prove the claim that everything in the Universe is of matter.

Well all we've dealt with in the universe thus far is either matter or energy so there is no reason to assume otherwise until we have evidence, otherwise one could follow any claim to the ends of the time on the sole basis we haven't proved it wrong.

I have not made a fact or truth claim. No one should be making a fact/truth claim either way, that is, assuming that everything in the Universe is matter/energy or that only some parts of it are matter and energy. Both positions are assumptions since there is no logical and evidential basis to lead to that conclusion or for any absolute claim for that matter. I should also say that this thread was just about meaning and some examples, rather than actual existence or proving the supernatural.

You've also referenced all of what scientists have encountered so far in the Universe, and that is short-sighted if you're just going by that. I say that because not only do you have to consider that scientists do not know everything but you also have to consider even in the things that they do know (or claim to know), they may be in error about as well.

I have no proof of a spiritual part of the Universe. I only mentioned that to say that there is no contradiction even if we said the Universe is all that exists (as an alternative to saying that matter is all that exists).

Why would you think anything to the contrary of what we have unless you have some form of proof? Like I said earlier, if you do that, you can believe anything just because it has not been proven false.

There is some evidence but not scientific proof.
I am personally not an advocate for just believing or exploring anything just because it has not been proven false. I believe the supernatural (or some aspects like God, spirits/ghosts, etc) is worth exploring because of the impact and influence it has had on mankind since recorded history. Billions of people believe in it in one way or another, have experienced it, have developed religions and other belief systems out of it, etc. Plenty have even died for it. I don't see leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster having the same real life influence and impact in this way so those would be some of the things I'd likely not explore myself.

I would agree with you if something was explained using the "current" form of the scientific method, then it should be natural, since the scientific method is tailored for materialism and what we can see and observe, etc. I think lots of theists focus on examining the supernatural by trying to discover new observations and facts but I think the key also lies on modifying the philosophy behind scientific method. The only exception I see where scientific explanation wouldn't always lead to a natural classification is when something can have two different causes. For example, there may be a supernatural or natural origin to a religion. Of course, scientists could discover the natural explanation but that is not to say that all religions would have natural causes.

If we can measure it, we would you the scientific method, if we can't measure it, then it's pointless to try and study it since there is nothing we can learn about it. If we can observe it, then it can be measured, this is because our senses translate various forms of energy into what we perceive. How can there be an alternative means? Can you think of one?

Theoretically speaking, there are some supernatural phenomena that we should be able to observe if they happen. Scientists perhaps could measure it in some way, but that is not adequate to understanding or explaining since the phenomena would occur in a way that is not the ordinary or natural way of how things work. We've gone through examples before like using "willpower" to fly or heal the sick. For the flying part, you mentioned using willpower along with some type energy. Lets say both of those, components we can measure and explain, and therefore they're both natural forces. What about when it comes to if the two are suppose to interact to where a person can fly? I understand that natural forces may be at use but what about "how" they're used (which I'm saying wouldn't be natural?)?

Previously, you've mentioned formulating an equation to find constants to figure out all that is involved but that assumes that we can figure out what the third or however many forces involved are, and that they're suppose to interact in that way and be something we can repeat ourselves since we have willpower along with those other forces to use.

[polygonx]

Love and the concept to implementation of justice are examples of the supernatural.

They do not exist naturally. Certainly not in nature except in humans.

Concepts encoded within our minds by protiens that exist in the physical world. Love may be an amazing wonderful experience (and I agree), but it's still oxytocin and other various neurotransmitters binding to receptors. A bleak way to look at things I know, but reality nonetheless.

I would just say physical, since that is what you mean. If you act now, I will throw in 2 weeks supply of Extenze for free. It is real science, and not a gimmick. Money back guarantee!

[Gonzo]

I have not made a fact or truth claim. No one should be making a fact/truth claim either way, that is, assuming that everything in the Universe is matter/energy or that only some parts of it are matter and energy. Both positions are assumptions since there is no logical and evidential basis to lead to that conclusion or for any absolute claim for that matter. I should also say that this thread was just about meaning and some examples, rather than actual existence or proving the supernatural.

The word should be used alongside fantasy and mythical.

You've also referenced all of what scientists have encountered so far in the Universe, and that is short-sighted if you're just going by that. I say that because not only do you have to consider that scientists do not know everything but you also have to consider even in the things that they do know (or claim to know), they may be in error about as well.

Scientists as a whole do in fact know everything (in the field of science that is), since they are the ones that create the knowledge. We don't know anything until we observe it. The energy and matter exist and so does the way they interact, but it doesn't matter unless there is something there to interpret it.

There is some evidence but not scientific proof.
I am personally not an advocate for just believing or exploring anything just because it has not been proven false. I believe the supernatural (or some aspects like God, spirits/ghosts, etc) is worth exploring because of the impact and influence it has had on mankind since recorded history. Billions of people believe in it in one way or another, have experienced it, have developed religions and other belief systems out of it, etc. Plenty have even died for it. I don't see leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster having the same real life influence and impact in this way so those would be some of the things I'd likely not explore myself.

More often than not the various deities are mutually exclusive so only one can be correct if any at all. That means a lot of the various impacts your talking about are due to an imagined being(s), if not all of them.

Religious belief is linked to a particular area of the brain. Read this article.

Here is an excerpt

“...spiritual consciousness probably evolved in us in response to the emergence of self-conscious awareness which brought with it, as an unfortunate side-effect, an awareness of our own deaths. As a result of this new type of consciousness, the human animal would have to live in a state of constant mortal peril and dread unless some adaptation could help relieve us of this awarenesses’ painful effects.�

Theoretically speaking, there are some supernatural phenomena that we should be able to observe if they happen. Scientists perhaps could measure it in some way, but that is not adequate to understanding or explaining since the phenomena would occur in a way that is not the ordinary or natural way of how things work. We've gone through examples before like using "willpower" to fly or heal the sick. For the flying part, you mentioned using willpower along with some type energy. Lets say both of those, components we can measure and explain, and therefore they're both natural forces. What about when it comes to if the two are suppose to interact to where a person can fly? I understand that natural forces may be at use but what about "how" they're used (which I'm saying wouldn't be natural?)?

I can't adequately answer you because people don't fly using their willpower. However, based upon what we know thus far about the universe, if such an event were to occur, it would have a natural explanation.

Previously, you've mentioned formulating an equation to find constants to figure out all that is involved but that assumes that we can figure out what the third or however many forces involved are, and that they're suppose to interact in that way and be something we can repeat ourselves since we have willpower along with those other forces to use.

Well it's what we've done in the past with most other interactions in this universe, and well... it works.

[Gonzo]

Love and the concept to implementation of justice are examples of the supernatural.

They do not exist naturally. Certainly not in nature except in humans.

Concepts encoded within our minds by protiens that exist in the physical world. Love may be an amazing wonderful experience (and I agree), but it's still oxytocin and other various neurotransmitters binding to receptors. A bleak way to look at things I know, but reality nonetheless.

I would just say physical, since that is what you mean. If you act now, I will throw in 2 weeks supply of Extenze for free. It is real science, and not a gimmick. Money back guarantee!

I don't understand where you were going with that, but this article explains how the chemicals in the brain produce what people call love, and how by changing then around you can make animals not monogamous or monogamous.

[Angel]

You've also referenced all of what scientists have encountered so far in the Universe, and that is short-sighted if you're just going by that. I say that because not only do you have to consider that scientists do not know everything but you also have to consider even in the things that they do know (or claim to know), they may be in error about as well.

Scientists as a whole do in fact know everything (in the field of science that is), since they are the ones that create the knowledge. We don't know anything until we observe it. The energy and matter exist and so does the way they interact, but it doesn't matter unless there is something there to interpret it.

Your statement is not what I was referring to and it only minimizes my point. *Knowledge* is a state of certainty *about something* whether it be the Universe or more specifically our planet. All of the fields of science are directed towards knowing *about the material Universe* or something in it. Psychology is the scientific study of the mind. Are you saying that scientists know everything there is to know *about the mind* and correctly so? Sure, knowledge is part of a cognitive process but the Universe isn't. Scientists did not create the Universe and they have to obtain knowledge *from or about* the Universe. To clarify the response you were referring to for the sake of better clarity, what scientists know *about the Universe* may not always be correct. I'm also wondering that if something can potentially be an error or if you don't know if what you know is "TRUE", then I question if it is real "knowledge" to begin with rather than just being our best attempt to obtaining knowledge.

To cut to the chase here, is there any scientists or any field of science that claims to be *omniscient* and *infallible*? If so, can you prove that this scientists or scientific field is omniscient and infallible?

[Goat]

You've also referenced all of what scientists have encountered so far in the Universe, and that is short-sighted if you're just going by that. I say that because not only do you have to consider that scientists do not know everything but you also have to consider even in the things that they do know (or claim to know), they may be in error about as well.

Scientists as a whole do in fact know everything (in the field of science that is), since they are the ones that create the knowledge. We don't know anything until we observe it. The energy and matter exist and so does the way they interact, but it doesn't matter unless there is something there to interpret it.

Your statement is not what I was referring to and it only minimizes my point. *Knowledge* is a state of certainty *about something* whether it be the Universe or more specifically our planet. All of the fields of science are directed towards knowing *about the material Universe* or something in it. Psychology is the scientific study of the mind. Are you saying that scientists know everything there is to know *about the mind* and correctly so? Sure, knowledge is part of a cognitive process but the Universe isn't. Scientists did not create the Universe and they have to obtain knowledge *from or about* the Universe. To clarify the response you were referring to for the sake of better clarity, what scientists know *about the Universe* may not always be correct. I'm also wondering that if something can potentially be an error or if you don't know if what you know is "TRUE", then I question if it is real "knowledge" to begin with rather than just being our best attempt to obtaining knowledge.

To cut to the chase here, is there any scientists or any field of science that claims to be *omniscient* and *infallible*? If so, can you prove that this scientists or scientific field is omniscient and infallible?

It seems you are making some assumptions that are misleading.

I do not think any scientist thinks we know everything about anything, nor do I think any scientist think any scientist is omniscient and infallible.

While religious people might claim God is, they are going from their own fallible and limited understanding and in addition, they are going with zero evidence.

[Gonzo]

Your statement is not what I was referring to and it only minimizes my point. *Knowledge* is a state of certainty *about something* whether it be the Universe or more specifically our planet. All of the fields of science are directed towards knowing *about the material Universe* or something in it. Psychology is the scientific study of the mind. Are you saying that scientists know everything there is to know *about the mind* and correctly so? Sure, knowledge is part of a cognitive process but the Universe isn't. Scientists did not create the Universe and they have to obtain knowledge *from or about* the Universe. To clarify the response you were referring to for the sake of better clarity, what scientists know *about the Universe* may not always be correct. I'm also wondering that if something can potentially be an error or if you don't know if what you know is "TRUE", then I question if it is real "knowledge" to begin with rather than just being our best attempt to obtaining knowledge.

To cut to the chase here, is there any scientists or any field of science that claims to be *omniscient* and *infallible*? If so, can you prove that this scientists or scientific field is omniscient and infallible?

I didn't say they were infallible or that they were even right. All I said was they are the ones who create knowledge. Knowledge doesn't exist until a being creates it. It can't exist without something to interpret it. That was my point.

As a whole, the scientific community knows all there is to know about the physical universe thus far based upon evidence. It could be wrong or right, my point is the information lies with them, since they create it.

Do you have anything to say about the rest of my other post?

[Angel]

I didn't say they were infallible or that they were even right. All I said was they are the ones who create knowledge. Knowledge doesn't exist until a being creates it. It can't exist without something to interpret it. That was my point.

As a whole, the scientific community knows all there is to know about the physical universe thus far based upon evidence. It could be wrong or right, my point is the information lies with them, since they create it.

Do you have anything to say about the rest of my other post?

If we follow your reasoning, then I'd say scientists have more to know or more to add to their knowledge since they have not explored all or every aspect of the Universe which is how we ascertain knowledge to begin with. Besides that, your point does not answer for or prove the claim that "everything" in the Universe is material which was my original point to begin with.