What is "supernatural"?

[Ryantology]

Anything that exists outside the natural realm. Supernatural entities would not have to follow natural laws. Supernatural events or beings can't be proven by science because science is the study of natural existence.

If there is no way to detect anything outside of the natural realm and no way of showing any other person evidence that there is anything outside of the natural realm, how do you justify asserting that there is anything outside of the natural realm?

[vorlon13]

Do I dare bring up the many worlds interpretation ?

Or the multiverse ?

[Lek]

Anything that exists outside the natural realm. Supernatural entities would not have to follow natural laws. Supernatural events or beings can't be proven by science because science is the study of natural existence.

If there is no way to detect anything outside of the natural realm and no way of showing any other person evidence that there is anything outside of the natural realm, how do you justify asserting that there is anything outside of the natural realm?

I said that science can't prove the supernatural because it only looks at the natural. So you need something besides science to detect the supernatural.

[Foxaèr]

So you need something besides science to detect the supernatural.

Please, do inform us of this wonderful way in which the supernatural can be verified as existing.

[Lek]

So you need something besides science to detect the supernatural.

Please, do inform us of this wonderful way in which the supernatural can be verified as existing.

Through direct revelation or personal experience. I believe much about the supernatural through the witness of people I trust. That's not good enough for you because you rely on science to prove or disprove what it's not equipped for.

[Foxaèr]

Through direct revelation or personal experience.

So, you have nothing. Thank you.

[Ryantology]

Through direct revelation or personal experience. I believe much about the supernatural through the witness of people I trust. That's not good enough for you because you rely on science to prove or disprove what it's not equipped for.

You seem equally as impotent as I am at proving or disproving your assertion about the supernatural. Can you prove that any direct revelation or 'personal experience' has ever actually taken place? Is there a single one with a single solid external reason to accept it?

[Cinjin]

Please, do inform us of this wonderful way in which the supernatural can be verified as existing.

Through direct revelation or personal experience. I believe much about the supernatural through the witness of people I trust. That's not good enough for you because you rely on science to prove or disprove what it's not equipped for.

And how pray-tell, does direct revelation verify anything to others? It's only good for one person, and what happens when that one person worships a different god than yourself? Still supernatural? ... or wishful thinking?
Even my hard-core fundamental baptist father has never claimed to have had direct revelation. He chooses to believe in the absurd so he can escape the reality of death. Nothing more.

Having deistic beliefs, I know all about wishful thinking, but I don't go around claiming that supernatural forces are running the planet.
You cannot verify anything, and using "personal experience" as some kind of "alternate form of evidence" is just ri-goddamn-diculous.

[max-greece]

I'm tempted to say "magic", but that doesn't really help. xD

I suppose when you get down to it, it refers to things perceived to lie far outside our normals means of explaining things. Ex: The heavens, gravity and diseases were often regarded as the workings of the supernatural prior to us gaining a more robust understanding of them.

I don't know if this epistemic-gap is necessarily the case with all purportedly supernatural things, but it certainly is rather pervasive.

I'd say magic is spot on. We use the word magic as a way of saying - there is no explanation, or, as an alternative to an explanation. How does this work? No idea, it must be magic.

This is exactly what supernatural is, to me.

It is akin to the causality argument. Theists pretend, or delude themselves, into thinking that God is sufficient cause for the universe without a material cause.

This means that on the one hand they cite causality as it works here on earth (as if that means it works that way outside space/time) and then apply it as if it incorporates ex-nihilo creation.

When you press them on how this might be the case they end up saying something that means "magic," but get very upset when you point that out.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Many of then don't seen to understand why causality wouldn't apply prior to the universe.