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.

[Gonzo]

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.

If something is to interact with nature, is must be a part of nature, unless you have an example that contradicts this. It doesn't matter if he's "from" nature or not, in the example you gave someone simply stated God was natural, not that he was 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.

Based upon my understanding of "true" laws of nature, logic is among them. If this is true, and the God you speak of is above such laws and able to "break" them, he should be able to make a square circle.

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.*

Logic may be considered immaterial because it exists independent of interpretation. However, whenever we deal with the concept of logic, it exists in our minds, encoded by various proteins interacting with each other in the physical world. Concepts are not immaterial, as they take an organism to interpret them, and upon interpreting they exist in the physical world.

If a supernatural event can be observed then it must have natural components as our observations are all based upon the natural world. This means that the event by its definition is not supernatural, since it can be observed, it can eventually be measured and understood based upon principles in the natural world.

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.

Science has attempted to explain the supernatural in the past, and the result is we find that everything thus far we interact with, is part of the natural world. Demons were thought to cause disease before the observance of microbes for one example. Science only deals with the natural, as it relies upon observation and repeated tests, if those can be preformed on the subject in question, then it is part of the natural world.

The purpose of science is to explain the natural world, as it is all we know and can interact with. Science can't explain something immaterial, if such a thing can exist, because it only deals with the material.


In short, the supernatural has no relevance to reality due to its inability to interact with the natural. (otherwise it would be considered natural).

[Angel]

If something is to interact with nature, is must be a part of nature, unless you have an example that contradicts this. It doesn't matter if he's "from" nature or not, in the example you gave someone simply stated God was natural, not that he was from nature.

I'm not sure if I agree with your response completely. Perhaps its valid to say that God is part of nature in that He's in it when He visits it's realm but what others have meant is that He also is confined to the laws of nature. That's where I disagree. Nature is a governing force in the Universe and it entails laws or ways of functioning and it presumably has boundaries in that it doesn't function everwhere in reality. Only things that follow these laws and that originated here can be said to be natural (which just is describing something of nature).

Based upon my understanding of "true" laws of nature, logic is among them. If this is true, and the God you speak of is above such laws and able to "break" them, he should be able to make a square circle.

I can't make the connection between the laws of logic and the laws of nature since they both apply to two different things or in different ways. Logic is conceptual and it applies to the fundamental nature of reality or at least is asserted to.
The laws of nature are not conceptual but are tangible in that you can see their effects and also that they interact and direct matter.

Lets say that the laws of logic and the laws of nature were connected. I'd say that the laws of logic encompass the laws of nature in that they are more fundamental. Nature would be a subsystem under the overarching system of the logic. Put this way, a law of nature could be violated without a law of logic (like the law of non-contradiction) being violated. I say this because violating a law of nature is not contradictory, since the laws of nature only apply to the things that are a product of nature, so just as long something not of nature (something supernatural in other words) violates it, then it's not a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Logic may be considered immaterial because it exists independent of interpretation. However, whenever we deal with the concept of logic, it exists in our minds, encoded by various proteins interacting with each other in the physical world. Concepts are not immaterial, as they take an organism to interpret them, and upon interpreting they exist in the physical world.

Concepts are from and confined only to the mind. Even when we interpret them, that is not to say that they exist in the physical world, otherwise we'd be able to see a concept or interact with it physically. If what we were interpreting was something outside of the mind that we can point to, then I'd agree that there is physical existence to that said thing. The neural activity in the brain are just reactions and are always active. Even when someone is dreaming there is brain activity and arguably dreams by no means exists in the physical world.

If a supernatural event can be observed then it must have natural components as our observations are all based upon the natural world. This means that the event by its definition is not supernatural, since it can be observed, it can eventually be measured and understood based upon principles in the natural world.

Yes, an observable supernatural event would contain "some" natural components. Take for instance, Jesus walking on water. The natural components was His body, and the act of walking. The supernatural component is that a solid mass standing on top of liquid without sinking. At times, something being supernatural is not a matter of what was done but rather how it was done. Take for instance God parting the Red Sea. The Red Sea parting may be something that can happen naturally with tradewinds, but since a weather system wasn't involved (according to the bible), and God was, that's what makes it supernatural.

Science has attempted to explain the supernatural in the past, and the result is we find that everything thus far we interact with, is part of the natural world. Demons were thought to cause disease before the observance of microbes for one example. Science only deals with the natural, as it relies upon observation and repeated tests, if those can be preformed on the subject in question, then it is part of the natural world.

The purpose of science is to explain the natural world, as it is all we know and can interact with. Science can't explain something immaterial, if such a thing can exist, because it only deals with the material.

In short, the supernatural has no relevance to reality due to its inability to interact with the natural. (otherwise it would be considered natural).

Science has disproven many "claims" of what people call supernatural, but I'd say that only defeats superstition (ignorant and excessive belief), that is not to say that the supernatural doesn't exist. Fair-minded people typically don't call things supernatural at the drop of a hat. Labelling something supernatural with these types usually starts with an extraordinary experience in which they subsequently evaluate it, and when natural explanations don't account, they're inclined to class it as supernatural. You rightly mention "thus far" science has disproven supernatural experiences although I'd also say, others supernatural claims have not been explained either way (as natural or supernatural ) and just have been called a mystery.

I do agree with the rest of your statements regarding the "current" practice of science but that is not to say they can't expand their methods to accomodate any probable aspects of the supernatural.

[Gonzo]

I'm not sure if I agree with your response completely. Perhaps its valid to say that God is part of nature in that He's in it when He visits it's realm but what others have meant is that He also is confined to the laws of nature. That's where I disagree. Nature is a governing force in the Universe and it entails laws or ways of functioning and it presumably has boundaries in that it doesn't function everywhere in reality. Only things that follow these laws and that originated here can be said to be natural (which just is describing something of nature).

I guess that lies within the very definition of supernatural, exceeding natural means. If God is a part of nature, then he can only interact with it through natural means as that is how the natural world functions. It's like how the concept of a soul has no bearing on deciding between free-will or determinism since it is still subject to interact with the natural world. The "soul" as it were, would be just as subject to reality as the body is, as it is subject to the same natural influences. When something outside a system, interacts with a system, it is still subject to the same laws the system holds. Kind of like a videogame, except in this case, god has hacks (how he "defies" the system, is still possible within the system).

Regarding the underlined though, where have we observed natural laws not functioning in reality?

I can't make the connection between the laws of logic and the laws of nature since they both apply to two different things or in different ways. Logic is conceptual and it applies to the fundamental nature of reality or at least is asserted to.
The laws of nature are not conceptual but are tangible in that you can see their effects and also that they interact and direct matter.

Logic is tangible in the sense that it directs thought (which is matter), which is encoded into the physical world by means of your brain.

Lets say that the laws of logic and the laws of nature were connected. I'd say that the laws of logic encompass the laws of nature in that they are more fundamental. Nature would be a subsystem under the overarching system of the logic. Put this way, a law of nature could be violated without a law of logic (like the law of non-contradiction) being violated. I say this because violating a law of nature is not contradictory, since the laws of nature only apply to the things that are a product of nature, so just as long something not of nature (something supernatural in other words) violates it, then it's not a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Violating a law of nature is contradictory to everything we know about the laws of nature. If a law were "violated", our understanding of such law would be changed to accommodate this new information in order to obtain a more objective notion of how it functions. (like the switch from Newtonian to Einsteinium Mechanics regarding gravity). This idea is the very reason scientific research is carried out. Natural laws can not contradict themselves, we simply change our understanding of natural laws.

Concepts are from and confined only to the mind. Even when we interpret them, that is not to say that they exist in the physical world, otherwise we'd be able to see a concept or interact with it physically. If what we were interpreting was something outside of the mind that we can point to, then I'd agree that there is physical existence to that said thing. The neural activity in the brain are just reactions and are always active. Even when someone is dreaming there is brain activity and arguably dreams by no means exists in the physical world.

You can point to the chemicals that encode this concept of logic (well not yet, but we know such a thing to exist). Things like logic take a mind to interpret and understand, which is why that is their place in the physical world, only in our minds, like you said. In the absence of a mind to interpret it, there is no logic. The "just reactions" occur in the natural world. The very fact that your senses can interpret a dream means that its components exist in the physical world. It may just be neural activity, but it can all be traced by to physical stimuli, this is why things like a matrix will be possible in the future once we better understand the brain.

Yes, an observable supernatural event would contain "some" natural components. Take for instance, Jesus walking on water. The natural components was His body, and the act of walking. The supernatural component is that a solid mass standing on top of liquid without sinking. At times, something being supernatural is not a matter of what was done but rather how it was done. Take for instance God parting the Red Sea. The Red Sea parting may be something that can happen naturally with tradewinds, but since a weather system wasn't involved (according to the bible), and God was, that's what makes it supernatural.

Like I said, if god exists, he has hacks. He has to abide by the system though in order to interact with it. Which means if god can hack through natural processes, so can we. I mean we are already so close to be able write our own DNA or create life from scratch. Maybe he is just a mass of energy, he is called that at one point if I'm not mistaken, dynamic energy or what have you, maybe he creates mass through that energy or changes systems concentrations (for parting of the red sea), I just don't see how something can interact with something, without being a part of it. Unless you have an example the could easily be reproduced that is.

Science has disproven many "claims" of what people call supernatural, but I'd say that only defeats superstition (ignorant and excessive belief), that is not to say that the supernatural doesn't exist. Fair-minded people typically don't call things supernatural at the drop of a hat. Labelling something supernatural with these types usually starts with an extraordinary experience in which they subsequently evaluate it, and when natural explanations don't account, they're inclined to class it as supernatural. You rightly mention "thus far" science has disproven supernatural experiences although I'd also say, others supernatural claims have not been explained either way (as natural or supernatural ) and just have been called a mystery.

I do agree with the rest of your statements regarding the "current" practice of science but that is not to say they can't expand their methods to accommodate any probable aspects of the supernatural.

Would you call somebody of another faith or lack of faith in a highly educated position "fair-minded"? And how can one fully evaluate a supernatural occurrence?
What are these "mysteries" you speak of?

Science could never accommodate supernatural by your definition, as science only deals with natural, observable occurrences. If natural laws can be broken left and right how are we to evaluate such? How can we measure and observe something not part of this reality? The answer is we can't. If we can measure and observe it, it is a part of our reality, that's what reality is! (the state of things as they actually exist).

[Mere_Christian]

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.

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.

[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.

[Angel]

I guess that lies within the very definition of supernatural, exceeding natural means. If God is a part of nature, then he can only interact with it through natural means as that is how the natural world functions. It's like how the concept of a soul has no bearing on deciding between free-will or determinism since it is still subject to interact with the natural world. The "soul" as it were, would be just as subject to reality as the body is, as it is subject to the same natural influences. When something outside a system, interacts with a system, it is still subject to the same laws the system holds. Kind of like a videogame, except in this case, god has hacks (how he "defies" the system, is still possible within the system).

Regarding the underlined though, where have we observed natural laws not functioning in reality?

I think our disagreement for this point centers around our different understanding on the way God interacts with or is part of nature (when He enters this realm that is). I would say though it would depend on what type of interaction God was doing.
For example, If God wanted to *physically* interact with humans, then I would agree that He'd have to make His presence physically perceptible to the person which would be natural in a sense. However, if He wanted to do something like a healing in a *supernatural* way, then that would mean He'd interact in a way that breaks the laws of nature. That is the whole concept of the supernatural, interacting in nature while not following the laws of nature. You gave an analogy regarding something outside a system interacting with something inside the system. That is too simplistic. God is not just simply a being outside of nature, He also contains the power to override the system to where it wouldn't apply to Him.

For your question, scientists have not claimed to observe anywhere where the laws of nature are not functioning but they also haven't or really CAN'T observe the laws of nature applying "everywhere". That would take "absolute" knowledge and science has no means to obtain knowledge on that scale, it only deals with probability.

Logic is tangible in the sense that it directs thought (which is matter), which is encoded into the physical world by means of your brain.

Logic is a product of thought or really is really a thought or sum of thoughts. Things formed by our thoughts are not said to exists in the real world. They are lifeless or inanimate (no physical characteristics), and just a mental *concept*. We also have imaginations made by our thoughts, that is not to say that imaginations are real or exists in the real world just as logic wouldn't. Only chemicals and neurons which are physical components in the brain can only effect or regulate thought.

Violating a law of nature is contradictory to everything we know about the laws of nature. If a law were "violated", our understanding of such law would be changed to accommodate this new information in order to obtain a more objective notion of how it functions. (like the switch from Newtonian to Einsteinium Mechanics regarding gravity). This idea is the very reason scientific research is carried out. Natural laws can not contradict themselves, we simply change our understanding of natural laws.

This is one reason I emphasized the supernatural only being the factor only when a "true" or an "authentic" law of nature is broken. That is a law of nature that is actually operating, which then can't be said to be wrong or not a real law. If it's not wrong, then there's no updating or correction that science would need to do. I agree that natural laws can not be contradicted via *themselves* doing it. An outside or supernatural agent must do that. This can also be simply how you define the laws of nature, which don't necessarily have to be absolute, they can be conditional in that they're open to be overridden by the supernatural.


I will try to address your other points later.

[TheMessage]

Logic is tangible in the sense that it directs thought (which is matter), which is encoded into the physical world by means of your brain.

Logic is a product of thought or really is really a thought or sum of thoughts. Things formed by our thoughts are not said to exists in the real world. They are lifeless or inanimate (no physical characteristics), and just a mental *concept*. We also have imaginations made by our thoughts, that is not to say that imaginations are real or exists in the real world just as logic wouldn't. Only chemicals and neurons which are physical components in the brain can only effect or regulate thought.

This is false for two reasons. First, something doesn't have to life or animation to have physical characteristics. Go find a rock. Second, our thoughts do have physical characteristics... in fact, that's all they really are. As has been stated multiple times already, every concept or dream that runs through your head is just a chemical reaction in your brain. It doesn't exist apart from the physical in any way.

[Angel]

Logic is tangible in the sense that it directs thought (which is matter), which is encoded into the physical world by means of your brain.

Logic is a product of thought or really is really a thought or sum of thoughts. Things formed by our thoughts are not said to exists in the real world. They are lifeless or inanimate (no physical characteristics), and just a mental *concept*. We also have imaginations made by our thoughts, that is not to say that imaginations are real or exists in the real world just as logic wouldn't. Only chemicals and neurons which are physical components in the brain can only effect or regulate thought.

This is false for two reasons. First, something doesn't have to life or animation to have physical characteristics. Go find a rock. Second, our thoughts do have physical characteristics... in fact, that's all they really are. As has been stated multiple times already, every concept or dream that runs through your head is just a chemical reaction in your brain. It doesn't exist apart from the physical in any way.

This may be hard to explain due to the classic ole mind/body problem. I do agree with you that physical existence doesn't have to involve animation or life but it does have to involve tangibility. For example, if I have a thought of a person in and it leads to additional electrochemical reactions the only physical thing here is still just the electrochemical responses, not the content of the thought. Going by how you explained this, it would seem you'd also say that the person is also physically existing in my head, which doesn't add up since a person has mass along with other physical characteristics. If a thought of a person isn't a physically existing thing than neither is a thought on logic. Unless you can prove that logic has an electro-chemical form in the brain which is far-fetched. You may as well be calling logic a type of chemical if that was the case.

[Angel]

Logic is not tangible.