As long as anything is within the bounds of nature, it is NOT SUPERNATURAL. If anyone chooses to classify it as supernatural, then that is ignorance, if someone decides to understand it, then that is science.

Humans have mistakenly classified things like the sun, wind and other animals as supernatural, did that suddenly make those actually supernatural? or do we now know that to be a mistake? And if it is a mistake, why would you consider repeating it?

Supernatural = beyond what is possible in our known universe.
Pretty sure that would be an atheist's definition. 

Most of us here wouldn't relate to it any other way.
It's just battle fatigue conversing with so many religious people.
We're sticking to our definition.

PS, i do love the way you incorporate simple calculus to define the undefinable ..."supernatural"

(June 30, 2015 at 1:12 am)pool Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 12:54 am)Aristocatt Wrote: Right, I understand what superior means.  We are discussing whether a far superior being is synonymous with supernatural being.

In that case,

A superior being would have far superior understanding of the universe and hence have technological advancements than humans which can categorize them as Supernatural beings as long as we do not have an understanding of or haven't yet reached an understanding of the universe with science that is on par with their science.

Note that it is according to me that a Superior being should have Superior knowledge.
A Bodybuilder may not agree with me,according to him the Superior being would have to have Superior muscles xD.
Then the Superior being would have to be A being with Superior knowledge and Superior muscles.
But as long as knowledge is valued among humans a superior being to be classified as superior would have to have Superior knowledge.

Just because there's a herd of smarty-pants space aliens whizzing around the stars it doesn't make them "gods".  If a smart guy from today went back in time he could impress the heck out of the grubby goat ropers with his bag of tricks.  But he would still be a man and not a real "god" even if the goat ropers called him a "god" and worshipped him.  

For our purposes we can say that a real "god" could create the entire universe all by himself.  A herd of smarty-pants space aliens can't do that even if they had a full bag of tricks.  

Logic says that the various renditions of the "God" character in the Bible was just a series of men who ruled the goat-ropers in ancient times.  He died off when man grew more than 10 brain cells and became aware of reality.

We know that the biblical "God" character isn't a real "god" because reality disproves the biblical fairy tale.  According to the Bible God only cares about a small piece of dirt on a small planet in a universe with trillions of planets and he only cares about a thimble full of people in the entire human race.  So when the world ends he will gather that thimble full of special people in a golden cube on a waterless planet and spend eternity with them there.  That pretty much excludes all other life forms in the entire universe except for a gaggle of weird creatures he likes to surround himself with.  

That basic story might have made sense when the goat ropers thought that stars would fall to the Earth.  Today intelligent people know better.  

If a person needs to believe in a deity he should at least create one that fits into the 21st Century knowledge base instead of relying upon the ones ignorant goat ropers created thousands of years ago.  Those "gods" are obsolete and need to be buried and forgotten.

(June 30, 2015 at 3:02 am)ignoramus Wrote: Supernatural = beyond what is possible in our known universe.
Pretty sure that would be an atheist's definition. 

Most of us here wouldn't relate to it any other way.
It's just battle fatigue conversing with so many religious people.
We're sticking to our definition.

PS, i do love the way you incorporate simple calculus to define the undefinable ..."supernatural"

I did that?
Is this a compliment or are you being sarcastic?(Because i can't tell)
And everyone's accusing me of bending definitions to fit into my side of the argument.
You just made up your own definition..

Nature = universe = everything that exists

So something that is *super*natural, 'beyond' natural is really nonexistent. It's an empty concept.

@ Neimennovic,

xD That's a very faulty logic.

Grass+Hopper = Grass that can hop?

The definition of Supernatural is not "Beyond nature".It is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.".

PS I didn't just make that up.

(June 30, 2015 at 3:45 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Just because there's a herd of smarty-pants space aliens whizzing around the stars it doesn't make them "gods".  If a smart guy from today went back in time he could impress the heck out of the grubby goat ropers with his bag of tricks.  But he would still be a man and not a real "god" even if the goat ropers called him a "god" and worshipped him.  

There is a cargo cult in the Pacific that worships Prince Philip as a god, and I've seen Prince Philip so I'm pretty certain he exists. Which means I've been wrong about my atheism all this time because God exists and he lives in Buckingham palace!

Matey, it's no use fighting it.
Use "our" definition and get your point across.
Otherwise we'll just play word games all day.

The dictionary is irrelevant.
The dictionary defines gods and unicorns.
It doesn't make them any more valid.
There a logic flaw in your base premise if you can't get your point across without using the stupid word "supernatural".

We also have no time for other concepts, eg:  spiritual, soul, antipizza, rock sorters, etc.

This is just trolling now, good job.

(June 30, 2015 at 3:59 am)pool Wrote: @ Neimennovic,

xD That's a very faulty logic.

Grass+Hopper = Grass that can hop?

The definition of Supernatural is not "Beyond nature".It is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.".

PS I didn't just make that up.

(B mine)

That's what I said.

Nothing is beyond the laws of nature because nature is everything. Beyond the laws of nature = beyond nature = beyond what exists = nonexistent.

Moreover, beyond scientific understanding != beyond laws of nature. You have two different definitions:

1) things beyond our scientific understanding

Many things used to be beyond scientific understanding. Our ignorance does not grant any of those things powers above the laws of nature.

2) things beyond the laws of nature

Empty set

So you're either proposing the existence of something nonexistent or implying that because we don't understand it, it must work beyond the laws of nature. It may come as a shock to you, but there are laws of nature we have not yet described. That doesn't mean that what follows these yet unknown laws is beyond the laws of nature, because nothing is.

Arguing semantics is not a good way to get your point across; moreover, changing definitions only does that much: change definitions.


Arguments a priori are worthless when it comes to the existence of god. And again, as long as you have to make his case for him, he's only becoming less compelling. Especially when you do it as weakly and as dishonestly as in this thread.