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

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

(O_o)

The fek?

Well.... if you're done then fine.

I'm not the one rabbiting on about the supernatural and it being possible.

Cheers then.

[The Grand Nudger]

A poor attempt to split the baby. A singing frog would be natural if a frog sang, according to your definition. There's no need to invoke the mind demons again. Anything that anything does must be natural, if your definition is accurate.

In mere reality, the fact that some people hope to recast their god as a natural agent is both a fools errand, and not entirely genuine. A product of the failure of supernaturalism and the faithfuls desire to appropriate a more palatable description of their beliefs.

Also in mere reality, multiple posters noticed this problem as soon as the definition fell from your lips - as anyone who cares to look can see. We can add trivially false bullshit about this conversation to the list of trivially false bullshit you've graced us with in this conversation.

[Belacqua]

the supernatural and it being possible.

I don't believe it's possible. 

I also don't believe it's possible to prove it's not possible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it possible to prove that there are no married bachelors? If so, then it should also be possible to prove that the supernatural is impossible, as you've defined it.

We could skip so much bs by simply suggesting that proving things isn't possible - allowing for every claim on the scale of epistemic nihilism and generously conceding that they all have merit without any discussion of their specific issues....but, a problem for all is a problem for none. If the criteria or process that you use cannot prove that anything is impossible, it's not surprising or informative when it fails to prove that one thing is impossible.

We could dive even further, beyond popper, to major revisions in his work, and say that we're being pancritical. Critical not just of logical positivism, but of logic itself. Perhaps logical inference is not capable of adequately commenting on logical possibility (the specific question here - though we could repeat this statement with any other sort of question we think logic can answer). This is the only state of affairs in which the definition you offered could not prove that the supernatural doesn't exist - but it has the misfortune of being labeled as explicit irrationalism.

Worth noting that a person doesn't have to go this route, at all, to believe in the supernatural. That's just a personal choice you've made. A person with a genuine belief in the supernatural can be satisfied (indeed, require) it's fundamental otherness to nature, concede that all knowable propositions can be knowably false, and simply believe that this knowable proposition isn't one of the false ones. None of these supernatural arguments of convenience, which reduce the term to meaninglessness and axiomatically guarantees it's impossibility , are required to hold the belief with intellectual rigor and honesty. Frankly, they do more harm than good to the dualist concept.

[brewer]

No, I have been clear in my definition.

A supernatural event is when something does an act which is not possible for its nature. The singing frog was an example.

By that definition it would seem that god is natural, and angels, and ghosts, and fairies, and Superman, .......... because their nature, and events they can create, can be anything humans want to define.

This is silly and pointless.

[Mr.wizard]

the supernatural and it being possible.

I don't believe it's possible. 

I also don't believe it's possible to prove it's not possible.

How can you say "there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural" and then say you don't believe it's possible?

[Succubus#2]

It looks as though some people are making a similar claim with the supernatural. We've looked all over and we haven't found it, therefore it doesn't exist.

If the supernatural exists we wouldn't have to look for it, it would stand out like a diamond on a frogs arse.

...By definition, the supernatural is not natural, and so using naturalist methods to search for it aren't relevant.

 
So the only way we can reveal supernatural is via supernatural?
  How very convenient. Now go back to that Wiki page and lookup circular reasoning.

[possibletarian]

the supernatural and it being possible.

I don't believe it's possible. 

I also don't believe it's possible to prove it's not possible.

And yet you state there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural !!

*emphasis mine*

[Succubus#2]

If something did an act which is completely against its nature, that would be supernatural only if the action were self-originated. That is, frogs can't sing Italian duets, so such an action would be supernatural.

You really don't see the insanity of bringing singing frogs into a discussion when it's clear to all bar philosophers that frogs cant sing. And by 'philosophers' I mean your particular brand of stoner philosophy. I suspect even that great spouter of shite Paul Tillich would balk at the dross you post here.

If we observed such an action, however, the cause in fact might be outside of the frog. That is, the frog is being manipulated puppet-wise by an unseen agent.

You're taking the piss.

---

I don't believe it's possible. 

I also don't believe it's possible to prove it's not possible.

---

I don't believe it's possible. 

I also don't believe it's possible to prove it's not possible.

How can you say "there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural" and then say you don't believe it's possible?

This whole thing is a masterclass in obfuscation. As long as Bel won't commit himself to a position we will forever go round in circles. He can't lose this debate not while the goalposts are a moving target.

[Belacqua]

I don't believe it's possible. 

I also don't believe it's possible to prove it's not possible.

How can you say "there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural" and then say you don't believe it's possible?

Did you read the whole post? I said that what input counts as evidence depends on one's interpretive model. 

I also said that evidence is not proof.