(June 3, 2016 at 4:05 pm)SteveII Wrote: I do not know what your hangup on the word supernatural is, so call it anything that makes you happy. I'm sticking with the traditional definition. [1]
What sense does " It has an explanation that just can't yet be explained" make? It either has an explanation or it does not. [2] How can you say that an event was certainly not supernaturally (let's just say God so you don't start the definition thing again) caused? [3]
1) Doesn't the fact that there IS a hang-up give us pause to "force" this term? Clearly it brings a lot of baggage with it, why not concede a little. It's only a term.
Also, I am not sure the term is very traditional. Instead, it appears to be quite modern (e.g. compare the term "nature" as used since 19th century to its use before Descartes).
2) There is a difference between things which can be explained in principle, and things which contradict the principles we know. I think they mean the former.
3) This is why I think this dichotomy of terms is unhelpful. I don't think it helps to limit God's activity in this world ONLY to the miraculous and spectacular.
