What is Supernatural?

[Ravenshire]

Supernatural is the explanation given by the ignorant to explain what they cannot.

[bennyboy]

But is the supernatural that which hasn't been explained, or that which cannot be explained, and how do we tell the difference?

Let's start with a God which created the universe out of nothing.  And by nothing, I mean that nothing OF THE UNIVERSE existed, and then came to exist: space, matter, etc.  Now, this universe has a link to whatever framework in which God exists-- another time, another dimension, whatever.  Is God and that other dimension natural, or supernatural?

I'd say the cut line is arbitrary, but that from our perspective, it could be called supernatural if nothing about our universe gave any hint what that "other" dimension, entity, or quantity was that caused the universe to exist.  In other words, "supernatural" would mean "of this universe, or at least knowable from within it."

If the Big Bang is true, I'd argue that whatever it is that allowed the Big Bang to be a thing must be supernatural in this sense.

[Athene]

Supernatural is religious-speak for magic, point blank. Any theist that claims otherwise is a liar.

[vorlon13]

But is the supernatural that which hasn't been explained, or that which cannot be explained, and how do we tell the difference?

Let's start with a God which created the universe out of nothing.  And by nothing, I mean that nothing OF THE UNIVERSE existed, and then came to exist: space, matter, etc.  Now, this universe has a link to whatever framework in which God exists-- another time, another dimension, whatever.  Is God and that other dimension natural, or supernatural?

I'd say the cut line is arbitrary, but that from our perspective, it could be called supernatural if nothing about our universe gave any hint what that "other" dimension, entity, or quantity was that caused the universe to exist.  In other words, "supernatural" would mean "of this universe, or at least knowable from within it."

If the Big Bang is true, I'd argue that whatever it is that allowed the Big Bang to be a thing must be supernatural in this sense.

[vorlon13]

But is the supernatural that which hasn't been explained, or that which cannot be explained, and how do we tell the difference?

Let's start with a God which created the universe out of nothing.  And by nothing, I mean that nothing OF THE UNIVERSE existed, and then came to exist: space, matter, etc.  Now, this universe has a link to whatever framework in which God exists-- another time, another dimension, whatever.  Is God and that other dimension natural, or supernatural?

I'd say the cut line is arbitrary, but that from our perspective, it could be called supernatural if nothing about our universe gave any hint what that "other" dimension, entity, or quantity was that caused the universe to exist.  In other words, "supernatural" would mean "of this universe, or at least knowable from within it."

If the Big Bang is true, I'd argue that whatever it is that allowed the Big Bang to be a thing must be supernatural in this sense.

Sorry,something went wrong with my post.

[robvalue]

I posted something about this a little while ago which I think is worth repeating here.

On my website I've used the definition that the supernatural is the set of things that can act on the natural world, but can't be acted upon by the natural world. This removes the subjectivity element of whether or not we can explain these things. This does raise the issue of whether these supernatural things are a subset of the natural world though, having a one way relationship with the remainder of the natural world.

I realized the perfect example for this scenario is a computer simulation. Say our reality is a simulation, created by a computer in a different reality. That reality can act on us via the computer, altering our reality. But there's nothing we can do to directly act upon their reality. Our influence is limited to our actions possibly being seen by an observer of the simulation in this other reality. If we have any actual free will (doubtful in this scenario) this would afford us a small level of communication.

But what about this other reality? It may be one very similar to ours, following the same kind of laws. Maybe it could be something entirely different, there's no reason the simulation has to be modelling their own reality exactly. This may just be how a particular program they run manifests. Is their world natural? Probably.

So... If supernatural means anything at all, I think it's really an artificial divide in the natural world. To say these other things are "not natural" is to make a lot of weird assumptions and accusations about them, when by definition we can't know the first thing about them.

Do people like my definition? It also comes with the bonus that it is impossible for us to ever demonstrate the supernatural is anything other than an empty set. Even demonstrating a supernatural cause is impossible, because we'd have to first eliminate every natural cause and also the possibility of there being no cause at all. Like I said earlier though, it's down to the person arguing for supernatural to tell us what it means. This definition is just an attempt to write something meaningful out of what people seem to be trying to say. Like with God, I don't think people really know what they mean when they argue for its existence. They just want to talk about magical stuff.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Actually I don't think it's possible to define Supernatural..
Anyone that can provide a reasonable definition will win cookies and milk..

[ignoramus]

I know exactly what it is!
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm809158144/tt...f_=tt_ov_i

I win!
Careful how you word your questions!

[robvalue]

I think "supernatural" is a special box people put things in so you can't take them away from them.

[surreptitious57]

Theists like to sometimes think that because the metaphysical [ I prefer it to supernatural ] cannot be denied
beyond all doubt that it therefore must exist. So then proceed to insert as much of God Of The Gaps into that
entirely non logical assumption in order to validate their particular belief system. But even if the metaphysical
does exist it cannot be subject to the rigour of the scientific method. So as such cannot be objectively verified
For that is the best methodology with regard to objective investigation of observable physical phenomena that   
there is. If anything is beyond that there is no way of actually knowing and so that has to be accepted as such

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN