(October 23, 2016 at 7:09 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: 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.
I agree completely. The best one could do is what Jörm mentions, to distinguish unpredictable "forces" from regular, to an extent predictable "forces" in nature.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
