(October 23, 2016 at 8:49 pm)Whateverist Wrote:(October 23, 2016 at 8:30 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Very interesting thoughts.
Is it really worthy of the label "supernatural" though? Maybe "transnatural" as in transcending or going beyond the way nature usually is?
I mean... because supposedly "supernatural" applies to that which is not part of nature...
...and I personally think that what you described is nature behaving extraordinarily idiosyncratically.
Moreover do we have at our disposal any natural means to determine whether any action whose cause isn't fully understood has an unknown and currently mysterious natural cause? Unless we can make that determination, it doesn't seem possible to establish the existence of anything supernatural. This assumes that those who use the term are thinking anywhere near as carefully about it as you and not just working to confirm pre-existing biases without even realizing it. Seems like a huge shot in the dark to expend much time or concern over.
True. But I think Jor was speaking purely in principle rather than in practice.
I just think perhaps it would be nature behaving extra-ordinary or idiosyncratically rather than supernaturally.
It would be natural, and it would be super, but it wouldn't be supernatural. That's the way I see it.
Because supposedly supernaturalness isn't just naturalness that is super... it's supposedly entirely beyond the natural.
