Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[polymath257]

You haven't actually described what it 'Is'.

Cheers.

Not at work.

Supernatural events are those which occur "over and above" the nature of a thing. 

Science tells us that frogs lack the mental capacity and vocal structure to sing Mozart. If a frog did that, it would be over and above its nature.

If a frog did that, we would start studying how and why it did that. Attributing it to being 'supernatural' adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. For that matter, talking baout the 'nature' of a frog also adds nothing to the discussion.

---

But it would be natural just abnormal

According to the definition I'm using, it would be supernatural. I've explained why.

Why do you say that a frog doing what a frog can't do would be natural?

 and certainly an outlier but being an outlier does not make something unnatural.

Outliers, as I understand it, are possible but rare. They are still within the bounds of science, in that they can be tested through repeatable empirical methods. 

You've introduced a new term here: unnatural. What do you mean by this?

 AGAIN I'll ask why should we give credence to an idea such as supernatural without any supporting evidence?

I'm not saying you should believe in the supernatural. 

I'm saying that when you talk about "any supporting evidence" you are begging the question, since the evidence you accept is the kind that doesn't address things which are non-repeatable and non-empirical.

1. If a frog is doing it, clearly a frog *can* do it.
The question is how and why, not if. So, *if* you think the frog can't sing 'by its nature' and yet it is actually singing, then you are wrong about its nature. It *can* sing.

2. I'm trying to imagine what would be considered as evidence of  supernatural. By your admission, rare events are not enough. The event has to be singular, and not even a rare case of an actual natural law.

The problem is that singular cases would be left as puzzles. They would, almost by definition, have no explanation. And if, after we have found ALL the laws of physics, there is still no explanation, then and only then could we say it isn't natural.

But what is far more likely is that thesingular event will become part of a modified theory (people are quite inventive).

---

People can and do conjecture about the future all the time.

Conjecturing about the future is not seeing the future. Just as conjecturing about what's in my pocket is not seeing it. 

Your objection here is strange. Maybe after you finish breakfast you can pay more attention.

I can see the future. I know there will be an eclipse of the sun on April 8, 2024. The path of the moon will start in the Pacific ocean, and move across Mexico and into the US, crossing the path of the one a few years ago in Southern Illinois. If you want, I can give you details down to the minute.