Ben - it's probably down to how poorly defined the supernatural is, that we possibly disagree. I'm using the definition by which an agent in this supernatural realm can cause something to happen in the natural realm that breaks the normal laws in the natural realm.
I'd say in the example you give, it could possibly be something natural or supernatural (under the definition I am using). If we use the example of a few ghost sightings, these could be explained by (assuming just a natural realm and supernatural realm for simplicity):
1. Natural laws we already know
2. Natural laws we do not yet know
3. A supernatural influence
Even though ghost sighting can be explained by 1), lets imagine they can't. Now we have a choice of 2 or 3. We can't possibly claim 3, as we can't disprove 2. I can't discount 3 either (though I'd bet my house on it being 2). If I was omniscient I could do this.
I disagree with the Theist claims that we all just claim the supernatural definitely does not exist "on faith alone", which is what I've seen written by quite a few of them.
I'd say in the example you give, it could possibly be something natural or supernatural (under the definition I am using). If we use the example of a few ghost sightings, these could be explained by (assuming just a natural realm and supernatural realm for simplicity):
1. Natural laws we already know
2. Natural laws we do not yet know
3. A supernatural influence
Even though ghost sighting can be explained by 1), lets imagine they can't. Now we have a choice of 2 or 3. We can't possibly claim 3, as we can't disprove 2. I can't discount 3 either (though I'd bet my house on it being 2). If I was omniscient I could do this.
I disagree with the Theist claims that we all just claim the supernatural definitely does not exist "on faith alone", which is what I've seen written by quite a few of them.
