(May 30, 2020 at 4:27 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.
Uhm..... yeah.
Your definition doesn't actually seem to define the thing in question adequately.
Nor does your example adequately illuminate the concept.
So... other than possible singing frogs, do you have a better example of something supernatural? Or might you have a better attempt at the definition?
Cheers Bel.
No, it does define the concept just fine. Have you considered that the lack of clarity may be at your end?
Anyway, I think the best argument against the definition I've been using is pretty obvious. People haven't come up with it yet because they're too busy chanting their metaphysical beliefs "it can't happen it can't happen."
If something did an act which is completely against its nature, that would be supernatural only if the action were self-originated. That is, frogs can't sing Italian duets, so such an action would be supernatural.
If we observed such an action, however, the cause in fact might be outside of the frog. That is, the frog is being manipulated puppet-wise by an unseen agent. In that case it's all natural. It is in the nature of a frog to be manipulable by more powerful agents. It is in the nature of such agents to manipulate things.
That's why many Christians say that God is natural. Because God only is and does the things that it is in his nature to do. If it is in the nature of God to manipulate objects into doing things that they can't do on their own, then singing frogs would be entirely the result of natural processes.
