(July 4, 2018 at 4:15 am)robvalue Wrote: I heard a different definition one time which was interesting. It was intended as a way to model the way it is actually (often) used, in relation to reality:
The supernatural is that which only exists subjectively in personal experiences.
Interesting definition but not one any religionist will go for I suspect. They need supernatural to mean 'real', yet not real enough that it's natural and can be explained.
But hypothetically speaking, imagine the supernatural did exist. There must then be a distinction between what is natural and what is supernatural. Where would one end and the other begin and what would be the distinguishing feature of either? Would there be a mix of both natural and supernatural? There has to be because brains are natural and can control our bodies yet religionists claim that brains can detect the supernatural. Yet religionists aren't interested in these type of questions. This is because they would discover that the supernatural does not exist.
