(May 26, 2020 at 3:21 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.
Yes, yes you did Bel.
Your definition is coherant. It's pretty meaningless to myself but you're right in that it is coherant.
Cheers.
Thank you. It's the only definition of "supernatural" that I understand.
I'm pretty sure it's the original meaning. Back when people started talking about this stuff, they were clear about what they meant. Gradually the system they used fell out of fashion, but some of the terms stayed in use. So we still use the word, but have mostly forgotten what it was supposed to mean. That's why it's incoherent to most modern people. (There are some other examples of this kind of thing.)
Even if you don't like their system overall, I see no reason why we have to jettison all of the concepts. For example when we talk about a thing's "nature" we're just referring to what the thing is and does, as opposed to something else. There's nothing supernatural, anti-science, or anti-modern about that.
In fact just now I was watching a TV show (nicely full of sex and drugs) called "Flack" and one of the characters told a joke with exactly that usage of "nature." So I know it's still in use.