(December 22, 2016 at 11:59 am)robvalue Wrote: I'd like anyone to define supernatural without using an equivocation fallacy.
The only definition I've heard that is consistent is that it refers to things external to our reality. This makes it subjective of course.
If something is defined to be unfalsifiable, it can be safely ignored. The question of its existence becomes irrelevant, for all practical purposes.
Supernatural is anything not part of the natural universe. As such, not constrained by our observable framework (perhaps constrained by another framework). That is not to say it cannot interact with our natural universe (causation).
On what basis do you make the philosophical statement that "If something is defined to be unfalsifiable, it can be safely ignored"?