So, my question: Is there a dividing line between low probability events and the Supernatural? Is it just a matter of the degree of probability or should one apply other criteria to an event to qualify it as 'Supernatural’? — Jacob-B

Yes, I would say the supernatural relies on explanations that aren't and can't be verified with empirical data.

So to use your example, any number of explanations could possibly fit the data of a perceived miracle. If you use something like God as an explanation that would be a supernatural explanation of the phenomenon (because God is by definition outside of this universe and so unverifiable).

Note that I don't think it makes much sense to say an event is natural or supernatural by itself, it's something you say about the explanation or interpretation of the event I think.

So, my question: Is there a dividing line between low probability events and the Supernatural? Is it just a matter of the degree of probability or should one apply other criteria to an event to qualify it as 'Supernatural’? — Jacob-B

I don't accept the premise of "supernatural" vs "natural" because nobody has defined what natural means.

If we define what that means, we can define supernatural.

When it comes to the resurrection, I reject the resurrection on multiple grounds a) lacks of sources, b) inconsistent sources, c) alternative explanations that work better, d) low prior probability of people being raised from the dead, e) early Christians may not have believed in a resurrection.

So, I don't accept the resurrection on multiple grounds. Aside from that, I have alternative religious commitments of my own.

Would the fully corroborated evidence of supernatural events necessarily lead one to believe in God, or at least in the supernatural;? — Jacob-B

I'll let you know if it happens. :roll:

Is it just a matter of the degree of probability or should one apply other criteria to an event to qualify it as 'Supernatural’? — Jacob-B

Even in the unlikely event that we can confirm an example of a supernatural event, the next problem is determining cause. As Isaac Asimov used to say, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I don't accept the premise of "supernatural" vs "natural" because nobody has defined what natural means.

If we define what that means, we can define supernatural. — Dharmi

:sweat: I'll give it a go:

'Natural' pertains to nature.

Nature consists in event-patterns (regularities) that are explainable – even if only in principle – in terms of different event-patterns (regularities) e.g. algorithmic modeling (how an event-pattern (regularity) comes about, continues, and/or ceases). Furthermore, nature is self-encompassing (i.e. finite) and causally closed (i.e. unbounded), therefore structured by regularities, which includes self-referring structures complex enough to produce knowledge (i.e. explanations) of nature using different aspects of nature in order to produce further applied knowledge (i.e. explanations of the potentialities) of 'self-referring structures complex enough to produce knowledge' (e.g. themselves).

'Supernatural' pertains to supernature.

Supernature (in contrast to nature) is a notion consistent with 'unexplainable – even in principle – random (patternless) events, or ruptures, in nature from "outside" or "beyond" nature'. In other words, make-believe. If there are grounds to believe that there is supernature, that it is more than a mere appeal to ignorance woo-of-the gaps for framing (religious) just-so stories, such evidence is the best kept secret in all of human history.

There may be more to nature than nature, of course, but there aren't any strong, sufficient, reasons to think so; let alone in principle unexplainable random 'ruptures' in the 'structure of regularities' (constituting nature) have ever been corroborated as evidence of supernatural occurences, forces or agencies. And to my mind, that's the holy grail of science: events in nature which nonetheless cannot be explained even in principle.

Nature consists in event-patterns (regularities) that are explainable – even if only in principle – in terms of different event-patterns (regularities) e.g. algorithmic modeling (how an event-pattern (regularity) comes about, continues, and/or ceases). Furthermore, nature is self-encompassing (i.e. finite) and causally closed (i.e. unbounded), therefore structured by regularities, which includes self-referring structures complex enough to produce knowledge (i.e. explanations) of nature using different aspects of nature in order to produce further applied knowledge (i.e. explanations of the potentialities) of 'self-referring structures complex enough to produce knowledge' (e.g. themselves). — 180 Proof

Right, so nature is a series of regularities. But if that's all, then there's no true distinction between supernature and nature.

Because something being regular doesn't in any way mean it is absolute. Unless, you're arguing for laws of nature which are themselves absolute. If you are, then I ask, where are these laws?

Supernature (in contrast to nature) is a notion consistent with 'unexplainable – even in principle – random (patternless) events, or ruptures, in nature from "outside" or "beyond" nature'. In other words, make-believe. If there are grounds to believe that there is supernature, that it is more than a mere appeal to ignorance woo-of-the gaps for framing (religious) just-so stories. — 180 Proof

Well, again, if you haven't defined nature, which you haven't, you've just claimed that nature is regularities, rather than something prescriptive, it's descriptive. If it's descriptive, then "supernatural" is simply something not yet explained by the so-called natural.

such evidence is the best kept secret in all of human history

Not quite. Since everyone in human history up until Abrahamism had access to religious systems which initiated one into the mystical union with the Absolute. It's not due to the lack of evidence or experience, the evidence is there, the experience is there. Modern man is simply alienated and unaware of it.

There may be more to nature than nature, of course, but there aren't any strong, sufficient, reasons to think so — 180 Proof

According to your descriptive, tentative, limited pragmatic so-called "natural" explanation. There still isn't any reason why that ought to be the case, or is the case. That's just frankly, an assertion.

I see... Ok.

What is the probability of God being wicked? The world might be good but then again but God needs to allow the good for a greater evil. If people start thinking of God as just as likely being bad then they are less likely to ascribe strange events to a person instead of to a material cause

What bothers me is the difference between "supernatural" and "unnatural"; the former has an aesthetically pleasing ring to it while the latter smacks of the grotesque but both are about things that aren't natural. What gives?

The supernatural is not something we can investigate so it's ultimate core might be unnatural. Theist want to set a rock in their reasoning to stop the thought that they really can't know what's going on in life. That is why they want to convince agnostics and call agnostics fools. But they can't disprove that the meta-truth of the supernatural is that it is grotesque

I can't imagine you don't see things in life that make you say "wow that is real". A silver car, a white female leg, a German shepherd, there has to be some thing that makes you pause and think "this is real"

The real is the natural

The unnatural is immanent to nature, it's shocking distortions perversities grotesqueries, which disgust us with proximity to the ordinary. The supernatural, on the other hand, transcends nature – including reason and corroborability – like oft-welcomed dreams, hallucinations or delusions. The latter corresponds to 'woo-of-the-gaps' (i.e. wishful, fetishistic) and the former to the' return-of-the-repressed' (i.e. weird, even sublime).

The "principle of least action" is a natural law

What are the laws of the supernatural?

Uhhh, no. Actually, everything I see in life I regard as fake. There's nothing authentic about human society or living on this planet. It's all a scam.

If you want to call the non-physical "natural" then I think you're stretching the definition.

So, my question: Is there a dividing line between low probability events and the Supernatural? Is it just a matter of the degree of probability or should one apply other criteria to an event to qualify it as 'Supernatural’? — Jacob-B

Per Clarke's Third Law, Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
IOW, if it seems like magic (or the "supernatural"), it's just a sufficiently advanced technology.

Nihil admirari!

I am familiar but its relevance depends on what A Clarke meant by 'Magi'. is it the magic = supernatural;
or the magic used when we try to describe something amazing (work like magic). If you show q native
of the Andaman Is a torch he would consider as magic-supernatural. On the other hand, if Isac Newton came across a TV set he would, because of his scientific mindset consider it as magic-amazing.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature. — (Karl) Schroeder's Law

Theist say "God won't go to you because you don't go to him" yet this is an implicit admission their arguments aren't full proof. I'm not going to act all goodie and goofy in an attempt to force myself to believe in God. That is just stupid. I know they have no arguments so I stay where I am. I argue with they because they ignorantly say "but this person is your Fathet" and I respond "you don't know my family nor are you my family". Their agenda to make the world better with theism just doesn't work. The best is to have a balance and though I do desire everyone to be atheists im more than happy with the way things are