The Problem with Christians

[abaris]

The way I used "supernatural" was not as an occurrence that was simply outside current understanding, but more likely something that is above and beyond what we see as possible, given the laws that govern nature.

Why? Since we don't know how it happened, we don't know the process involved.

[robvalue]

Yeah. I hope he's not going to just commit the argument from ignorance fallacy over and over, this will get boring fast.

[AJW333]

Please define "supernatural activity".

Of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural lawor phenomena;

Dictionary.com

[abaris]

Again - how would you know? Given that we don't know.

[robvalue]

I think he's playing catchup with our messages

Fair play, this is like 100 vs 1 here.

Coming back to "seems impossible":

Does that mean something could be supernatural to one person and not to another? There are things I understand just fine that other people might see as impossible. And vice verse.

We all know why theists like to use that word instead of "unexplained". It sounds much closer to "God", so they feel they have laid some groundwork.

[abaris]

I'm honestly unsure, if this isn't yet another sock of our good old friend.

It's starting to get just a little bit over the top for being real.

[AJW333]

The way I used "supernatural" was not as an occurrence that was simply outside current understanding, but more likely something that is above and beyond what we see as possible, given the laws that govern nature.

Why? Since we don't know how it happened, we don't know the process involved.

Why not simply say, "there are no supernatural processes, just natural processes we have yet to figure out?" The reason we have the word "supernatural" is to describe events that actually occur outside natural law, not just something that occurs within natural law that we don't yet understand. Do you see  the distinction?

[abaris]

Why not simply say, "there are no supernatural processes, just natural processes we have yet to figure out?"

Bingo.

[robvalue]

Yes, the distinction is that you want to make the unknown sound more mysterious than it is. You want there to be a supernatural. It doesn't mean there is.

It may be natural, it may not. Concluding that it's not, because it's currently unknown, is the argument from ignorance. What it even means to be "not natural" is not something that's easily established.

If that's all you're going to do, repeat that fallacy, there's nothing more to discuss. I won't reply anymore until you address this or move on to another point.

Are you for real or just yanking our chain?

[pocaracas]

The reason we have the word "supernatural" is to describe events that actually occur outside natural law, not just something that occurs within natural law that we don't yet understand. Do you see  the distinction?

No.... that's wrong.
The reason we have the word "supernatural" is because people are ignorant and have active imaginations to compensate.... doesn't mean that what gets imagined corresponds to reality, but I can see how it makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside.