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

[Succubus#2]

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.

We do not interperate evidence we analyse it if it fails analysis it's not evidence.

[possibletarian]

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.

*bold mine*

No it does not ! someone may feel as though they are justified in keeping a belief they already have because it cannot be disproven.

But under no interpretive model (as you call it) does saying 'we don't know' constitute evidence.

[Mr.wizard]

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.

It doesn't matter, you can't claim to believe the supernatural is impossible and claim to believe there is evidence for the supernatural.

[Fake Messiah]

So another topic went into people trying to determine what Belacqua is trying to say. Let me break it to you: Belacqua doesn't know what he is trying to say.

[possibletarian]

So another topic went into people trying to determine what Belacqua is trying to say. Let me break it to you: Belacqua doesn't know what he is trying to say.

I've pretty much come to that conclusion, almost like he's arguing from a third-person or multiple personality  perspective but offering nothing at all.

And when people say they they don't understand what he's saying, he counts that as a win.

[Succubus#2]

So another topic went into people trying to determine what Belacqua is trying to say. Let me break it to you: Belacqua doesn't know what he is trying to say.

I think his tagline sums him up nicely: Religious Views Um...

The 'Um...' applies to everything he's ever said. How can he ever be wrong when he never actually says anything.

---

So another topic went into people trying to determine what Belacqua is trying to say. Let me break it to you: Belacqua doesn't know what he is trying to say.

I've pretty much come to that conclusion, almost like he's arguing from a third-person or multiple personality  perspective but offering nothing at all.

And when people say they they don't understand what he's saying, he counts that as a win.

My emphasis.

Bingo!

[Mr.wizard]

So another topic went into people trying to determine what Belacqua is trying to say. Let me break it to you: Belacqua doesn't know what he is trying to say.

I've pretty much come to that conclusion, almost like he's arguing from a third-person or multiple personality  perspective but offering nothing at all.

And when people say they they don't understand what he's saying, he counts that as a win.

It's dishonest, he is trying to play both sides of the fence and he ends up stating things that are contradictory.

[brewer]

It's dishonest, he is trying to play both sides of the fence and he ends up stating things that are contradictory.

Actions of the desperate.

He wants to hide his belief in supernatural entities/places.

[polymath257]

At work.

Well..... yeah, what you've posted is all quite good Belaqua.

The one glitch so far is that you have not posted/posited "What Supernatural is."

Just posting 'Singing' and 'Frog' then smooshing the concepts togethet doesn't actually get you to a definition.

On the one hand it's (Possibly) because singing and frogs would seem to be quitre natural.

Yeah... finding them 'Together', as it were, would be 'Different' possibly even strange.  But using this as your example?  *Shakes head*

Antyways... be well Bel.

Cheers.

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.

And you have never described how to find the 'nature' of a thing.

The nature of the thing is what it is and does. All things are limited. If a thing does something which is over and above its nature, that's supernatural.

So, if a frog is singing, that is part of its nature: it is what it is and does.

How is it *possible* to go 'over and above', let alone 'different from' its own nature?

If it turned out that in fact frogs can sing soprano and bass in Italian simultaneously, then it is in their nature and isn't supernatural. If they can't, then it's supernatural. I've been clear about this all along.

Which means that if we see a frog do this, then it is in its nature, and is not evidence for a supernatural.

Some people want to make an argument from ignorance and say that if anything occurs, it MUST be natural. Because they don't know how it could be otherwise. But they can't prove it.

Remember, by what you said above, the nature of a thing is 'what it is and does'. So, *by this definition*, if a frog is singing, then it *is* in its nature.

By the very definition you have agreed to, it is impossible for something to act in a way that is not in its nature.

[LadyForCamus]

@Belaqua
A couple questions if you don’t mind.

Do you think of the supernatural as a force of some kind? Or a realm? Are there things that exist as supernatural entities? If the supernatural exists, it must have some ontological presence or form, yeah? What is the nature of the supernatural?

Additionally, what positive characteristics or attributes disqualify the supernatural from the category of natural? And, if the supernatural can interact with the natural world, and affect it in a discernible way, shouldn’t we be able to detect it somehow?

Thanks.