(July 4, 2018 at 1:36 am)robvalue Wrote: I note the general circular and arbitrary nature (haha) of it all. Examples based on previous conversations:
"Supernatural means not natural, and natural means not supernatural."
"Natural means obeying the laws of nature." [Unless you're going to tell me what those laws are, this statement is a pointless tautology, since everything obeys the laws pertaining to itself. There's then usually equivocation between our current scientific models and actual physical laws.]
The worst is the argument that natural explanations cannot be used to explain supernatural phenomenon because it's supernatural. This not only assumes that supernatural exists but also means that it cannot ever be determined to exist. Because how else would we be able to determine that anything supernatural exists except by natural means?
This then shows us that 'supernatural' is a deliberate blanket to avoid having to explain things or argue about plausibility.
For example, if I was adamant about the smoke breathing dragon in my garage and you started explaining to me how such a creature could not even exist I could just respond with, well, it's a supernatural dragon. You then just have to accept it on faith because I told you so. Yet if my neighbour claimed that there wasn't a smoke breathing dragon in my garage but it was a supernatural smoke monster instead, neither of us would have a way of determining which one was correct and both would be happy in their belief.
Which is basically the whole point of the word 'supernatural'. So believers can believe any old shit they want.
