I saw pool's post but didn't want to necro.

The definition of supernatural I would use would be a thing that doesn't follow natural laws. By that definition it would have to not exist because to exist it would be natural and therefore whatever characteristics define it would be natural.

example: Water that heals you instantly when you pour it on a wound! We know that isn't a thing but if it was a thing then it would be natural and we could study it to figure out the mechanism by which it does the seemingly supernatural thing.

This is why I find the idea of "supernatural evidence" so weird and a basically useless marrying of two words. Evidence is just some thing that indicates that something exists or works a certain way.

The "supernatural" concept has been used to seperate things from science through concepts like NOMA and models of the universe that have places of privilege like "outside" the physical universe or parallel dimensions.

Supernatural seems like a waste of time.

At the very least for it to ever be verified as existent or be observed or relevant or apparent or present as phenomena in our reality it would certainly have to be natural.

An untestable unprovable invisible intangible existent noumenal object is irrelevant to us even if it exists and whether it is labelled as "supernatural" or not is indeed irrelevant.

It's as pointlesss as Kant's thing-in-itself only more religiousy.

OP re. title: Sure it is. Worked for the fairy tales, then comic book industry, then movies, then gamers, then scientology. 

Tell Stan Lee it's not useful.

Many ways to interpret [emoji6]

Useful for what? Bullshitting? Yes. Fiction? Yes.

Useful for reality? No.

(October 23, 2016 at 7:48 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: [..] then scientology. 

Bender rules.

But I like Zap best. He's fucking hilarious.

He's almost as amusing but Zap makes me near piss myself sometimes.

(October 23, 2016 at 7:52 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Bender rules.

But I like Zap best. He's fucking hilarious.

Nah, bender all the way.

Each to their.