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

[Rhizomorph13]

 so it is a definitions game.

The term "supernatural" is notoriously hard to define. So if we're going to talk about it, it makes sense to have some notion of what we're discussing, and I offered a traditional definition. But if you'd prefer a different one, I'm willing to work with it.

 I would counter with my definition of natural which would be whatever is observed (Not necessarily with eyes or ears) is natural.

Does this mean that everything that hasn't been observed isn't natural? That seems problematic to me. It would mean that for a very long time the H. pylori in people's stomachs wasn't natural, and then it became natural when we observed it. There are a lot of rocks on Mars that haven't been observed yet, but I don't believe that they are supernatural. 

If you want to say that anything which has been or could be observed is natural, I think that's just a fancy way to say that everything is natural and nothing is supernatural, by definition. So you've defined it out of existence. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

So if a frog threw its asshole against the wall and jumped through it to another dimension and I saw it happen I would say we have a lot to learn about the true nature of frogs!

As I've said more than once now, if we could explain something like that through science and the nature of frogs, the explanation wouldn't be supernatural. 

If a thing is, then it is natural. If God exists it is natural, I would argue that it would constitute the anchor point of all of nature from most definitions of god that I know.

OK, this is clear. You're saying that by definition that there's no such thing as the supernatural. 

Christians who hold to the definition of supernatural I gave earlier agree with you that God is natural.

Bingo except for one quibbling detail; if something hasn't been observed in some way I would say it just hasn't been observed, there is no need to define unobserved things.

[polymath257]

 so it is a definitions game.

The term "supernatural" is notoriously hard to define. So if we're going to talk about it, it makes sense to have some notion of what we're discussing, and I offered a traditional definition. But if you'd prefer a different one, I'm willing to work with it.

My personal view is that the term 'supernatural' is simply incoherent.

 I would counter with my definition of natural which would be whatever is observed (Not necessarily with eyes or ears) is natural.

Does this mean that everything that hasn't been observed isn't natural? That seems problematic to me. It would mean that for a very long time the H. pylori in people's stomachs wasn't natural, and then it became natural when we observed it. There are a lot of rocks on Mars that haven't been observed yet, but I don't believe that they are supernatural. 

If you want to say that anything which has been or could be observed is natural, I think that's just a fancy way to say that everything is natural and nothing is supernatural, by definition. So you've defined it out of existence. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

No, but anything that cannot be observed, even in theory, might as well be non-existent.

So if a frog threw its asshole against the wall and jumped through it to another dimension and I saw it happen I would say we have a lot to learn about the true nature of frogs!

As I've said more than once now, if we could explain something like that through science and the nature of frogs, the explanation wouldn't be supernatural. 

If a thing is, then it is natural. If God exists it is natural, I would argue that it would constitute the anchor point of all of nature from most definitions of god that I know.

OK, this is clear. You're saying that by definition that there's no such thing as the supernatural. 

Christians who hold to the definition of supernatural I gave earlier agree with you that God is natural.

---

And how would you know if they are unable to do this? It isn't uncommon for there to be unanswered questions for decades. For example, is dark matter supernatural? It almost seems to be by your definition.

No, not at all. Dark matter is so far unexplained. I have been clear that there can be unexplained things which are natural. If in the future people worked out exactly what dark matter is and does, and we see that it operates according to its nature, then it's natural.

Science does NOT rely 'methodological naturalism' as you (and others) say. 

This is a strong claim. Here are some quotes that give my understanding of why science relies on methodological naturalism. Please tell me why they are wrong.

from https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/...ralism.htm

Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue.

The problem, ultimately, is in the definition of the concept of 'natural' and 'supernatural'. I think it much better to focus of 'testable' and 'untestable' in regard to hypotheses.

WAY too many philosophers are still stuck with an Aristotelian mindset.

from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#MetNat

“methodological naturalism” is the view that religious commitments have no relevance within science

This I agree with: that faith is not a part of science. Science requires testable hypotheses (which means there must be some way, in theory, that they could be shown to be wrong).

from https://infidels.org/library/modern/barb...alism.html quoting Paul Kurtz:

First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations.

And, again, the problem is in the concept of 'natural'. What is *actually* required isn't 'natural' it is 'testable'.

and from the same site, quoting Arthur Strahler:

The naturalistic view is that the particular universe we observe came into existence and has operated through all time and in all its parts without the impetus or guidance of any supernatural agency. The naturalistic view is espoused by science as its fundamental assumption."[8]

It seems to me that you and others on this thread are advocating methodological naturalism by insisting that if a frog sang Mozart we would look for and discover a natural explanation.

Then you are misunderstanding. If a frog was able to sing Mozart, that would become the raw data about certain frogs from which we learn what frogs are capable of doing. Now, a deeper explanation: how do they do it without vocal chords, etc, is clearly also needed.

Back to your post:

And how you you know whether a 'natural' explanation is possible?

I deliberately chose an example which looks impossible. The music I pointed to is a duet between a soprano and a bass, in which both are singing different melodies and articulating different words. There are singers who can produce two notes at once, but no one has yet sung two parts from a Mozart duet simultaneously. I think that given what we know of the human speech apparatus, it is impossible. And a fortiori for frogs. 

[size=undefined]

And all that means is that if we find such a thing and if we cannot find another explanation, it will simply be taken as raw data that some people can do this. And, if it is impossible from the human speech apparatus, then the determination of how the sound is generated becomes interesting.

And, truthfully, the most exciting part would be the potential violation of the law of conservation of energy. If *that* can be verified, then a great deal of science will need to be reconsidered.

But, even in that case, we would investigate when the phenomenon happens, how it happens, conditions under which it happens, and conditions when it doesn't. And, ultimately, what would arise is a different science with a different understanding of what is possible.

And, this has happened in the past with science. It would be a revolution in science, but the basic scientific method would still be preserved and would arrive at 'explanations' just as we do today.
[/size]

You are insistent that if this impossible thing were observed it would be natural. I think there are some things we can rule out as occurring given the facts of nature as we know them. But, as I have said several times now, if science finds a natural explanation then the thing is not supernatural. I am not as committed as you are to the proposition that no such supernatural thing (according to the definition I'm using) has never and will never and could never happen. It seems unlikely to me, but the impossibility of the supernatural is not something science can demonstrate. Therefore our dismissal of the supernatural is a belief about metaphysics, not a scientific conclusion.

[/quote]

What I am saying is that science would be able to study it, to analyze it, and to find patterns in how it works. That is what science *is*, ultimately. The term 'natural' is, ultimately, just those things that show testable patterns.

[Belacqua]

My personal view is that the term 'supernatural' is simply incoherent.

I gave a definition which is coherent.

No, but anything that cannot be observed, even in theory, might as well be non-existent.

By "observed," of course, you mean observed in the scientific sense. Repeatable, empirical. 

In the example I gave, we can observe the frog singing Mozart. We cannot discover the reasons for that through science -- in fact everything science tells us about frogs tells us it's impossible. 

I'm not saying that frogs can really sing, or that anything else supernatural happens. I am only pointing out that you affirm the consequent by determining the only acceptable methods.

The problem, ultimately, is in the definition of the concept of 'natural' and 'supernatural'. I think it much better to focus of 'testable' and 'untestable' in regard to hypotheses.

Right, because that starts out in a way that gives you the conclusion you like. Because "testable" means testable according to the method you prefer. 

This rules out anything which isn't testable according to science. It's begging the question. 

WAY too many philosophers are still stuck with an Aristotelian mindset.

Please explain why. Give examples. Why is talking about frogs having a nature overly Aristotelian? Would it be better for you if I just said that frogs are a certain way, and not another?

I'm looking for more than unsupported opinions.

This I agree with: that faith is not a part of science. Science requires testable hypotheses (which means there must be some way, in theory, that they could be shown to be wrong).

That's right. Testable according to the scientific methods. 

Metaphysical issues and supernatural ones, if they existed, would not be testable in this way. It is begging the question to assert that only such testable things exist.

nd, again, the problem is in the concept of 'natural'. What is *actually* required isn't 'natural' it is 'testable'.

This is the definition you prefer. By limiting the world to things that are testable in this way, you rule out anything else a priori. 

This is the metal detector issue: when your only tool is a metal detector, you only find metal. This doesn't allow you to conclude that only metal exists.

If a frog was able to sing Mozart, that would become the raw data about certain frogs from which we learn what frogs are capable of doing. Now, a deeper explanation: how do they do it without vocal chords, etc, is clearly also needed.

Frogs are not able to sing Mozart, especially simultaneously singing both parts of a duet. 

What I am saying is that science would be able to study it, to analyze it, and to find patterns in how it works. That is what science *is*, ultimately. The term 'natural' is, ultimately, just those things that show testable patterns.

This is a faith-based statement of metaphysics. Science can't prove that only things testable by science exist. 

I'm not saying that there are supernatural events. I'm only saying that your view amounts to a metaphysical commitment and faith which can't be proven. It may be correct, but we don't know.

What you're saying is that if something completely inexplicable to modern science happened, you have complete faith that it could be explained by science. Even before you know the explanation, you know it will be science. To me, this is the same as a Christian who says that in cases where we don't know the answer, the answer will surely be God. In both cases the believer is certain of things not proven.

[Peebothuhlu]

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.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So bell vomits up a lot of strawman and dishonest framing of poly's positions 

He statements are not faith based your just projecting faith onto them and no Bells definition isn't coherent

---

The term "supernatural" is notoriously hard to define. So if we're going to talk about it, it makes sense to have some notion of what we're discussing, and I offered a traditional definition. But if you'd prefer a different one, I'm willing to work with it.

My personal view is that the term 'supernatural' is simply incoherent.

Does this mean that everything that hasn't been observed isn't natural? That seems problematic to me. It would mean that for a very long time the H. pylori in people's stomachs wasn't natural, and then it became natural when we observed it. There are a lot of rocks on Mars that haven't been observed yet, but I don't believe that they are supernatural. 

If you want to say that anything which has been or could be observed is natural, I think that's just a fancy way to say that everything is natural and nothing is supernatural, by definition. So you've defined it out of existence. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

No, but anything that cannot be observed, even in theory, might as well be non-existent.

As I've said more than once now, if we could explain something like that through science and the nature of frogs, the explanation wouldn't be supernatural. 


OK, this is clear. You're saying that by definition that there's no such thing as the supernatural. 

Christians who hold to the definition of supernatural I gave earlier agree with you that God is natural.

---

No, not at all. Dark matter is so far unexplained. I have been clear that there can be unexplained things which are natural. If in the future people worked out exactly what dark matter is and does, and we see that it operates according to its nature, then it's natural.

This is a strong claim. Here are some quotes that give my understanding of why science relies on methodological naturalism. Please tell me why they are wrong.

from https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/...ralism.htm

The problem, ultimately, is in the definition of the concept of 'natural' and 'supernatural'. I think it much better to focus of 'testable' and 'untestable' in regard to hypotheses.

WAY too many philosophers are still stuck with an Aristotelian mindset.

from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#MetNat

This I agree with: that faith is not a part of science. Science requires testable hypotheses (which means there must be some way, in theory, that they could be shown to be wrong).

from https://infidels.org/library/modern/barb...alism.html quoting Paul Kurtz:

And, again, the problem is in the concept of 'natural'. What is *actually* required isn't 'natural' it is 'testable'.

and from the same site, quoting Arthur Strahler:


It seems to me that you and others on this thread are advocating methodological naturalism by insisting that if a frog sang Mozart we would look for and discover a natural explanation.

Then you are misunderstanding. If a frog was able to sing Mozart, that would become the raw data about certain frogs from which we learn what frogs are capable of doing. Now, a deeper explanation: how do they do it without vocal chords, etc, is clearly also needed.

Back to your post:


I deliberately chose an example which looks impossible. The music I pointed to is a duet between a soprano and a bass, in which both are singing different melodies and articulating different words. There are singers who can produce two notes at once, but no one has yet sung two parts from a Mozart duet simultaneously. I think that given what we know of the human speech apparatus, it is impossible. And a fortiori for frogs. 

[size=undefined]

And all that means is that if we find such a thing and if we cannot find another explanation, it will simply be taken as raw data that some people can do this. And, if it is impossible from the human speech apparatus, then the determination of how the sound is generated becomes interesting.

And, truthfully, the most exciting part would be the potential violation of the law of conservation of energy. If *that* can be verified, then a great deal of science will need to be reconsidered.

But, even in that case, we would investigate when the phenomenon happens, how it happens, conditions under which it happens, and conditions when it doesn't. And, ultimately, what would arise is a different science with a different understanding of what is possible.

And, this has happened in the past with science. It would be a revolution in science, but the basic scientific method would still be preserved and would arrive at 'explanations' just as we do today.
[/size]

You are insistent that if this impossible thing were observed it would be natural. I think there are some things we can rule out as occurring given the facts of nature as we know them. But, as I have said several times now, if science finds a natural explanation then the thing is not supernatural. I am not as committed as you are to the proposition that no such supernatural thing (according to the definition I'm using) has never and will never and could never happen. It seems unlikely to me, but the impossibility of the supernatural is not something science can demonstrate. Therefore our dismissal of the supernatural is a belief about metaphysics, not a scientific conclusion.

What I am saying is that science would be able to study it, to analyze it, and to find patterns in how it works. That is what science *is*, ultimately. The term 'natural' is, ultimately, just those things that show testable patterns.
[/quote]



Prepare for an unholy shitstorm of misrepresentations, strawmen, And sophistry .Mixed with disingenuous framing to accuse you of "faith " and falsely comparing you to theists

[Belacqua]

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.

[polymath257]

My personal view is that the term 'supernatural' is simply incoherent.

I gave a definition which is coherent.

No, but anything that cannot be observed, even in theory, might as well be non-existent.

By "observed," of course, you mean observed in the scientific sense. Repeatable, empirical. 

I mean detectable in some way that is public.

In the example I gave, we can observe the frog singing Mozart. We cannot discover the reasons for that through science -- in fact everything science tells us about frogs tells us it's impossible.

And if we saw such a thing, that would immediately *make* it possible. We would then investigate it and see what patterns such behavior shows. THAT is science.

I'm not saying that frogs can really sing, or that anything else supernatural happens. I am only pointing out that you affirm the consequent by determining the only acceptable methods.

Well, we could hear the frog singing duets. We could analyze where the sound is coming from. We could determine  if there is a violation of the law of conservation of energy. if there was, we would have a revolution in physics. If there was not, then, there was a mechanism for that sound production that we could then investigate further.

The problem, ultimately, is in the definition of the concept of 'natural' and 'supernatural'. I think it much better to focus of 'testable' and 'untestable' in regard to hypotheses.

Right, because that starts out in a way that gives you the conclusion you like. Because "testable" means testable according to the method you prefer. 

This rules out anything which isn't testable according to science. It's begging the question. 

Not 'testable according to science'. Testable in the sense that there is some potential observation that would show it to be wrong, yet all actual observations fail to do so.

And, in this, anything can be an observation as long as it is accessible even by non-believers.

What methods of observation do you that science is missing?

WAY too many philosophers are still stuck with an Aristotelian mindset.

Please explain why. Give examples. Why is talking about frogs having a nature overly Aristotelian? Would it be better for you if I just said that frogs are a certain way, and not another?

Whether frogs are a certain way or not is dependent on observation of frogs. if a frog was able to sing Mozart duets, that would be an observation. And it would lead to further investigation, not simply throwing up hands and proclaiming it to be supernatural.

I'm looking for more than unsupported opinions.

Why? That seems to be all you are giving.

This I agree with: that faith is not a part of science. Science requires testable hypotheses (which means there must be some way, in theory, that they could be shown to be wrong).

That's right. Testable according to the scientific methods.

No, testable in the sense I gave. It requires falsifiability and accessibility to non-beievers. That is all.

Metaphysical issues and supernatural ones, if they existed, would not be testable in this way. It is begging the question to assert that only such testable things exist.

Is there some way in which they *would* be testable? Again, in the sense that an explanation using them could be shown wrong by some potential observation?

nd, again, the problem is in the concept of 'natural'. What is *actually* required isn't 'natural' it is 'testable'.

This is the definition you prefer. By limiting the world to things that are testable in this way, you rule out anything else a priori. 

Yes, I eliminate a priori any explantion that is not falsifiable in the sense I gave above.

Do you think that is a real restriction? I think it is a minimal condition to even be considered an explanation.

This is the metal detector issue: when your only tool is a metal detector, you only find metal. This doesn't allow you to conclude that only metal exists.

If something isn't detectable by *any* detector at all, in what sense can it even be said to exist? I'm not limiting it to metal detectors.

In fact, you can design any detector you want in whatever way you want. All that is required is that a non-believer be able to access the information from your detector.

If a frog was able to sing Mozart, that would become the raw data about certain frogs from which we learn what frogs are capable of doing. Now, a deeper explanation: how do they do it without vocal chords, etc, is clearly also needed.

Frogs are not able to sing Mozart, especially simultaneously singing both parts of a duet. 

But if we saw such a thing, then that observation would mean that some frogs *can* indeed sing Mozart duets. Your saying they cannot is shown to be wrong by such an observation.

What I am saying is that science would be able to study it, to analyze it, and to find patterns in how it works. That is what science *is*, ultimately. The term 'natural' is, ultimately, just those things that show testable patterns.

This is a faith-based statement of metaphysics. Science can't prove that only things testable by science exist. 

What does it mean to say that something exists if it cannot be detectable in any fashion? Once again, I give you complete freedom to design any detector you wish. It must give consistent results (up to a spread that can be determined) and give publically accessible information.

If you cannot do that, even in theory, what sense does it make to even say something exists?

I'm not saying that there are supernatural events. I'm only saying that your view amounts to a metaphysical commitment and faith which can't be proven. It may be correct, but we don't know.

What you're saying is that if something completely inexplicable to modern science happened, you have complete faith that it could be explained by science. Even before you know the explanation, you know it will be science. To me, this is the same as a Christian who says that in cases where we don't know the answer, the answer will surely be God. In both cases the believer is certain of things not proven.

I think the problem is that your idea of what an 'explanation by science'  means is far too narrow. I am simply saying that if there is a detectable pattern *in any way*, then the methods of science can be applied: hypothesis, testing, and modification.

For example, if a frog was found to sing Mozart duets, that could well be taken as raw data of how that frog is. it would be an observational fact. We could then analyze the sound, analyze the frog, etc. And, in the worst case scenario, there would be a revolution in science and we would learn that more things are possible.

Maybe such duet singing frogs would be the solution to limitless energy. And, if so, that would be part of the science of those frogs.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I gave a definition which is coherent.


By "observed," of course, you mean observed in the scientific sense. Repeatable, empirical. 

I mean detectable in some way that is public.

In the example I gave, we can observe the frog singing Mozart. We cannot discover the reasons for that through science -- in fact everything science tells us about frogs tells us it's impossible.

And if we saw such a thing, that would immediately *make* it possible. We would then investigate it and see what patterns such behavior shows. THAT is science.

I'm not saying that frogs can really sing, or that anything else supernatural happens. I am only pointing out that you affirm the consequent by determining the only acceptable methods.

Well, we could hear the frog singing duets. We could analyze where the sound is coming from. We could determine  if there is a violation of the law of conservation of energy. if there was, we would have a revolution in physics. If there was not, then, there was a mechanism for that sound production that we could then investigate further.

Right, because that starts out in a way that gives you the conclusion you like. Because "testable" means testable according to the method you prefer. 

This rules out anything which isn't testable according to science. It's begging the question. 

Not 'testable according to science'. Testable in the sense that there is some potential observation that would show it to be wrong, yet all actual observations fail to do so.

And, in this, anything can be an observation as long as it is accessible even by non-believers.

What methods of observation do you that science is missing?

Please explain why. Give examples. Why is talking about frogs having a nature overly Aristotelian? Would it be better for you if I just said that frogs are a certain way, and not another?

Whether frogs are a certain way or not is dependent on observation of frogs. if a frog was able to sing Mozart duets, that would be an observation. And it would lead to further investigation, not simply throwing up hands and proclaiming it to be supernatural.

I'm looking for more than unsupported opinions.

Why? That seems to be all you are giving.

That's right. Testable according to the scientific methods.

No, testable in the sense I gave. It requires falsifiability and accessibility to non-beievers. That is all.

Metaphysical issues and supernatural ones, if they existed, would not be testable in this way. It is begging the question to assert that only such testable things exist.

Is there some way in which they *would* be testable? Again, in the sense that an explanation using them could be shown wrong by some potential observation?

This is the definition you prefer. By limiting the world to things that are testable in this way, you rule out anything else a priori. 

Yes, I eliminate a priori any explantion that is not falsifiable in the sense I gave above.

Do you think that is a real restriction? I think it is a minimal condition to even be considered an explanation.

This is the metal detector issue: when your only tool is a metal detector, you only find metal. This doesn't allow you to conclude that only metal exists.

If something isn't detectable by *any* detector at all, in what sense can it even be said to exist? I'm not limiting it to metal detectors.

In fact, you can design any detector you want in whatever way you want. All that is required is that a non-believer be able to access the information from your detector.

Frogs are not able to sing Mozart, especially simultaneously singing both parts of a duet. 

But if we saw such a thing, then that observation would mean that some frogs *can* indeed sing Mozart duets. Your saying they cannot is shown to be wrong by such an observation.

This is a faith-based statement of metaphysics. Science can't prove that only things testable by science exist. 

What does it mean to say that something exists if it cannot be detectable in any fashion? Once again, I give you complete freedom to design any detector you wish. It must give consistent results (up to a spread that can be determined) and give publically accessible information.

If you cannot do that, even in theory, what sense does it make to even say something exists?

I'm not saying that there are supernatural events. I'm only saying that your view amounts to a metaphysical commitment and faith which can't be proven. It may be correct, but we don't know.

What you're saying is that if something completely inexplicable to modern science happened, you have complete faith that it could be explained by science. Even before you know the explanation, you know it will be science. To me, this is the same as a Christian who says that in cases where we don't know the answer, the answer will surely be God. In both cases the believer is certain of things not proven.

I think the problem is that your idea of what an 'explanation by science'  means is far too narrow. I am simply saying that if there is a detectable pattern *in any way*, then the methods of science can be applied: hypothesis, testing, and modification.

For example, if a frog was found to sing Mozart duets, that could well be taken as raw data of how that frog is. it would be an observational fact. We could then analyze the sound, analyze the frog, etc. And, in the worst case scenario, there would be a revolution in science and we would learn that more things are possible.

Maybe such duet singing frogs would be the solution to limitless energy. And, if so, that would be part of the science of those frogs.

But Poly we have to respect metaphysical making stuff up and demanding actual standards we know work as opposed to the invisible dragon is" faith "

[polymath257]

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.

And, using your example, if a frog was found that could sing Mozart duets, then that is an observation of what it can do. By your definition, it would then be in the nature of that frog to sing Mozart duets.

Would that be an unusual frog? Certainly! Could it potentially lead to a revolution in science? Absolutely.

But could it be studied using science? Absolutely.

Science is NOT limited to 'explanations' that are dependent on current physics, chemistry, etc. In fact, current physics, chemistry, etc. are around because those are the best model we have for the observations we can make.

But, in a sense, the quantum world acts in ways that are *very* different than those of the classical world. Causality is mangled, realism is wrong, and things can appear and disappear for no reason. And yet, science manages to find patterns and use those patterns to give a predictive theory. And that predictive theory *is* the explanation.

---

But Poly we have to respect metaphysical making stuff up and demanding actual standards we know work as opposed to the invisible dragon is" faith "

Physicists 'make up possibilities' all the time. And there are some very strange suggestions that are made.

The key is testability: is there a way to make some observation that distinguishes between the proposal being true and it being false.

So, saying ghosts raise my garage door when I push the button isn't a good explanation not because it uses 'supernatural beings', but because we know a better explanation that fits into a larger theory whose predictions work in every case we have found. Adding ghosts to the mix doesn't actually help at all in the explanation, especially when E&M theory explains the magnitude of the forces involved.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's almost inevitable that every supernatural construct will be sanitized in the face of naturalism's success. This is no different from the early christian effort to appropriate classical pagan philosophy.

Our superstitions are rearranged to fit the current milieu.