(October 10, 2018 at 1:46 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (I put this in the wrong thread earlier)
About this ‘supernatural’ business:
If something can be evident, or generate evidence of its existence in the physical world via interaction with it, then it’s a part of this world, and not supernatural. If you’re going to assert that a thing can exist in the world, affect it, and leave evidence behind, yet it is somehow not a part of it, you’re going to have to defend that position via describing the specific, positive attributes that disqualify it from the category of, ‘natural.’
Just once I would like a theist to take an honest crack at explaining to me what the supernatural actually is, and in what ways it is distinct from the categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-existent’.
Your definition of supernatural is wrong. You're actually creating your confusion by defining the word so it makes no sense.
su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
- 1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
There is nothing in the definition that limits its interaction with natural things (those things that are governed by the laws of nature).
Further, a miracle is not a violation of the physical laws, it is an effect in the natural world with a supernatural cause. To say it another way, a physical law describes the expected effect given certain conditions. If there is a supernatural cause, those certain conditions obviously do not obtain.
