[Serious] Opinions on paganism?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why not?

I did post the definition for review.

... and upon further review, nothing in that definition said that the supernatural cannot be perceived.

The definition gave no reason why they are not detectable.

They're outside the realm of natural science and therefore chimera.

Begging the question, ten yards and loss of down.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I did post the definition for review.

... and upon further review, nothing in that definition said that the supernatural cannot be perceived.

They're outside the realm of natural science and therefore chimera.

Begging the question, ten yards and loss of down.

LOL

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

By definition, supernatural object or entities are not part of the natural world. That means that not being subject to natural laws, they should not be able to interact with natural phenomena. They wouldn’t reflect light, or emit sound, or be affected magnetism, gravity, radiation, or any of the thousands of other aspects of the natural world.

It seems that anything detectable would be part of the natural world. If something was truly supernatural, how could it be detected?

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By definition, supernatural object or entities are not part of the natural world. That means that not being subject to natural laws, they should not be able to interact with natural phenomena. They wouldn’t reflect light, or emit sound, or be affected magnetism, gravity, radiation, or any of the thousands of other aspects of the natural world.

It seems that anything detectable would be part of the natural world. If something was truly supernatural, how could it be detected?

Boru

That was my point.

[Ahriman]

By definition, supernatural object or entities are not part of the natural world. That means that not being subject to natural laws, they should not be able to interact with natural phenomena. They wouldn’t reflect light, or emit sound, or be affected magnetism, gravity, radiation, or any of the thousands of other aspects of the natural world.

It seems that anything detectable would be part of the natural world. If something was truly supernatural, how could it be detected?

Boru

You wouldn't understand until you've had a supernatural experience yourself, then you would at least question whether or not it was real.

[Thumpalumpacus]

By definition, supernatural object or entities are not part of the natural world. That means that not being subject to natural laws, they should not be able to interact with natural phenomena. They wouldn’t reflect light, or emit sound, or be affected magnetism, gravity, radiation, or any of the thousands of other aspects of the natural world.

It seems that anything detectable would be part of the natural world. If something was truly supernatural, how could it be detected?

Boru

There's a lot of supposition here, which, granted, is understandable given the subject matter. But my point remains that the definition GZ provided doesn't actually support the claim made. Further, if as you say the supernatural is not perceptible, anything said by anyone about the supernatural is supposition.

[Angrboda]

By definition, supernatural object or entities are not part of the natural world. That means that not being subject to natural laws, they should not be able to interact with natural phenomena. They wouldn’t reflect light, or emit sound, or be affected magnetism, gravity, radiation, or any of the thousands of other aspects of the natural world.

It seems that anything detectable would be part of the natural world. If something was truly supernatural, how could it be detected?

Boru

We don't detect things, we recognize the interaction between things and other things. Nothing about the supernatural prevents it from interacting with other things, your claim notwithstanding. When Jesus healed the leper, the supernatural was interacting with the natural world, in spite of your claim which contradicts most prior accounts of the supernatural.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By definition, supernatural object or entities are not part of the natural world. That means that not being subject to natural laws, they should not be able to interact with natural phenomena. They wouldn’t reflect light, or emit sound, or be affected magnetism, gravity, radiation, or any of the thousands of other aspects of the natural world.

It seems that anything detectable would be part of the natural world. If something was truly supernatural, how could it be detected?

Boru

You wouldn't understand until you've had a supernatural experience yourself, then you would at least question whether or not it was real.

You know there's no proof of such an experience other than the reporting party, yes?

[Bucky Ball]

By definition, supernatural object or entities are not part of the natural world. That means that not being subject to natural laws, they should not be able to interact with natural phenomena. They wouldn’t reflect light, or emit sound, or be affected magnetism, gravity, radiation, or any of the thousands of other aspects of the natural world.

It seems that anything detectable would be part of the natural world. If something was truly supernatural, how could it be detected?

Boru

You wouldn't understand until you've had a supernatural experience yourself, then you would at least question whether or not it was real.

No. 
You "interpreted" the experience as such. Your subjective interpretation is conclusive of nothing. 
Every religionist on the planet interprets an experience with reference to their god. 
It's meaningless.

[Ahriman]

You wouldn't understand until you've had a supernatural experience yourself, then you would at least question whether or not it was real.

You know there's no proof of such an experience other than the reporting party, yes?

Yeah, why would that matter?