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

[Belacqua]

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.

[Rhizomorph13]

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.

But it would be natural just abnormal and certainly an outlier but being an outlier does not make something unnatural. AGAIN I'll ask why should we give credence to an idea such as supernatural without any supporting evidence?

[Belacqua]

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.

[Peebothuhlu]

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. 

Okay. So what is "Over and above" a natural OR the nature of a thing, then?

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

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

Okay. So what is "Over and above" a natural OR the nature of a thing, then?

Cheers.

Not at work.

I've explained this. I think you're not paying attention.

Things are the way they are. They are and do the things they can be and do.

It is not in the nature of the human mind to see the future. If you saw the future, this would be supernatural. 

Or you might discover that in fact it is in the nature of the mind to see the future, but this was previously hidden (occult). Then it would not be supernatural.

[Peebothuhlu]

I've explained this. I think you're not paying attention.

Things are the way they are. They are and do the things they can be and do.

It is not in the nature of the human mind to see the future. If you saw the future, this would be supernatural. 

Or you might discover that in fact it is in the nature of the mind to see the future, but this was previously hidden (occult). Then it would not be supernatural.

That's... not really a satisfactory answer.

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

There's a lacking int the words we are positng to one another.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

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.

[Succubus#2]

What about subnatural or zeitranatural or even quadranatural

I could affix prefixes all day but why would we attribute truth to an untestable thing?

Is that a full-spectrum truth or a half truth?

[Peebothuhlu]

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 finished breakfast.

People don't see X-rays or into the infra-red either.

Your word usage is, as I've pointed out before, shifted from what I am used to as the norm.

Also... your analogy isn't rerally helping explain what the 'Supernatural' is.

So far all I can grok is that it's synonimous for 'I/We don't know yet.".....

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

People don't see X-rays or into the infra-red either.

This is correct. It is not in our natures to see outside of the visible light spectrum. We have come up with repeatable empirical ways to analyze the bits we can't see.

Also... your analogy isn't rerally helping explain what the 'Supernatural' is.

I haven't made any analogies. I've explained how I'm using the word and given some examples of what would be supernatural.

So far all I can grok is that it's synonimous for 'I/We don't know yet."..... 

Things that are natural, but so far unexplained, would not be supernatural. 

Some people assume that everything in the world could be explained by science, with sufficient time and research funding. But this is not something that science can prove. People who are confident of this are making a faith-based statement. It may be true, but we can't know.