I believe I already mentioned this before.

Supernatural, interpreted as something extraordinary, elecits/begs one of two responses:

1. Revision of our theories pertaining to the supernatural event: Science [we could be wrong, back to the basics].

2. Maintaining the theories pertaining to the supernatural event, but hypothesizing an entity/being that caused the supernatural event: Religion [we're right, but now there's something else, god(s)]

Thinking of “Supernatural” as an empty, useless term is possible if and when you think that, by natural explanations, you are able to exhaust all that we need to know, essentially, about something. This is part of the scientific drift that I think is happening today in philosophy. Let’s leave to scientists the job of scientist. Philosophy is wider than science: epistemology is philosophy, it is not science. Philosophy is able to criticize objectivism, metaphysics, science cannot, because this way it would just destroy its own possibility of existing.
Once you have reduced the understanding of lightning to science, you haven’t exhausted at all the understanding of the whole that happens. The same way, once you understand that the crocodile, that ancient Egyptians considered a symbol of divinity, is just an animal, you haven’t exhausted all the stuff connected to that experience. Once you have mastered all the features and characteristics of a letter (how many words, how much ink, how much paper, its weight and anything else measurable), you have understood nothing until you are able to understand its language, its content, its style.
Any material object can be understood in an infinity of ways, from an infinity of perspectives, that make it really infinite.

By reducing the fenomenon of lightning to what science is able to understand about it, you are making exactly the same identical error that you mentioned

the young student Max Planck was advised not to study theoretical physics because there was little left to be discovered. — Art48

The reasoning to be made is simple: if already happened in the past that people thought they had exhausted what was there to be known about certain things, while now we see that actually they had no idea of the infinite iceberg hidden behind what they considered all that we need to know, what makes you think that the same cannot happen in the present and in the future, even about the same things?

Supernatural is not a philosophical term. It's a perfectly reasonable word used in journalism and general conversation to provisionally describe phenomena which apparently defy the known laws of physics - gods, ghosts, demons, necromancy, prophecy, clairvoyance, etc... People I used to kick around with 35 years ago preferred the term superphysical, but the meaning is the same.

The fact that we don't know the limits of the natural doesn't matter - supernatural is a provisional term and its boundaries are easily understood and agreed upon and can be adjusted the moment our knowledge changes.

I see little value in the term supernatural but I also think too many people get 'overexcited' about such terms. Humans love drama and we love mystery and 'the unknown.' We ask questions, it seems to be our main function imo. I cannot imagine what purpose a human or even a future transhuman would have without questions to answer. Such a creature would be as pointless as a god. What can existence offer a god who IS as the OMNIS define it to be? I think the answer is nothing at all.
The best it could do is create little inferiors like us to give its existence some meaning but that would be like offering a dollar to the richest man/woman in the world to give him/her purpose. I cant see how that would work.
Words like supernatural, evil, god etc, are just manifestations of human curiosity about questions they can't answer yet. They are just emotive exaggerations, like:

Any material object can be understood in an infinity of ways, from an infinity of perspectives, that make it really infinite. — Angelo Cannata

A large number of ways is not anything like an infinity of ways, but that's what humans do, including me, at times, we embellish, we dramatise, we exaggerate, we attempt to create excitement about what we don't know and coin emotive phrases like 'supernatural,' in the same way we create other fantasies like, superman/woman/boy/dog etc.

...are just manifestations... — universeness

I think you are making the same mistake I already said:

By reducing the fenomenon of lightning to what science is able to understand about it, you are making exactly the same identical error that you mentioned

the young student Max Planck was advised not to study theoretical physics because there was little left to be discovered.
— Art48

The reasoning to be made is simple: if already happened in the past that people thought they had exhausted what was there to be known about certain things, while now we see that actually they had no idea of the infinite iceberg hidden behind what they considered all that we need to know, what makes you think that the same cannot happen in the present and in the future, even about the same things? — Angelo Cannata

I think you are making the same mistake I already said: — Angelo Cannata

I accept your opinion, as your opinion and I am sure you return that accommodation. But that which manifests in reality and that which are mere manifestations of a curious human imagination regarding that which is currently misunderstood or is currently unknown, should never be conflated.

I am not suggesting we stop pursuing any new knowledge.

Supernatural should refer to super nature, such as Stars and Solstices.

Until we know for certain the limits of the natural universe, we cannot know if something is beyond its limits. — Art48

:up: :up:

@Tom storm and @universeness suffer from enlightenment. It's highly infectious and most people here have it. The ancient regime had a triple concept at its root of God, Man, and Nature. (Or the supernatural, the human, and the natural.) Having a three legged philosophy is always a good idea for stability, and it is easy to see that as soon as the supernatural is eliminated, the distinction between man and nature collapses, and 'natural' becomes nothing but a comfortable advertising term, with as little meaning as supernatural.

Science can do without the term and just study phenomena, but then has to replace indistinguishable 'man and nature' with indistinguishable 'subjective and objective', or indistinguishable 'observer and observation'.

Not sure what your point is.

It looks like the supernatural refers to a class of things/phenomena that defies natural (read scientific) explanation.

The notion of supernatural is predicated on the completeness of our knowledge bank - we must know all that is natural. In other words, omniscience in re the natural is a sine qua non. If not we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the supernatural and the natural we're ignorant of.

Since we're, to my reckoning, not omniscient, it would be gross error to label things/phenomena supernatural.; it could be that our knowledge of the natural is deficient.

This pattern of thinking squares perfectly with the god of the gaps idea, oui?

↪unenlightened Not sure what your point is. — Tom Storm

Here's the simplified version: a word has meaning by virtue of referring to something and not referring to other things. Thus if 'supernatural' refers to nothing, 'natural' refers to everything, and both terms lose their meaning. Thus science as 'the study of nature' simply becomes science as 'study'.

What has any of that got to do with what I wrote about ordinary language usage of the word supernatural, which refers to those things we accept as not belonging to the natural world and likely untrue until we get good evidence?

Well, I doubt I can make it any clearer for you, but as a matter of fact, the enlightenment leads to modernism, and modernism to post modernism. That is to say, 'truth' as a natural phenomenon cannot be distinguished from delusion, as a natural phenomenon. You have removed a leg of the tripod on which civilisation has been built, and have not quite noticed that the whole edifice has come tumbling down.

Sorry, your point still eludes me. Let's move on. :wink:

“Supernatural” means above and beyond the natural world. It’s a valid, internally consistent concept. It’s also an empty, useless concept because we do not know the limits of the natural. — Art48

This seems problematic to me. Consider the term, "Shoreline". I think it is a useful term that designates the extent of an island. Yet it turns out on examination that its length is indeterminate because it is fractal, and it is constantly changing because of the tides. But this makes "island" an empty, useless concept because we do not know the limits. Better to notice the limits of ourselves and be content with some vagueness in our talk, because one cannot fit the world exactly in one's mind.

To deny meaning to "supernatural" is equivalent to claiming that "all is one" (all is natural), which, ironically, is very much the cry of the mystic.

Better to notice the limits of ourselves and be content with some vagueness in our talk, because one cannot fit the world exactly in one's mind. — unenlightened

Another way of putting this is to say that our ideas map the world, but a map is useful only to the extent that it leaves out all the fine details and radically simplifies everything. A road becomes a line, and the abandoned shoe on the verge is ignored.

To deny meaning to "supernatural" is equivalent to claiming that "all is one" (all is natural), which, ironically, is very much the cry of the mystic. — unenlightened

But then, let's say that ghosts are real. I would then see no reason to say they are outside/beyond nature. We have magnetic fields and neutrinos passing through us and now we (or scientific consensus) find that ghosts are real, but we should put them in another box: supernatural. To me they would be yet another phenomenon of the real. Just because some people have now decided they are real is not a reason to give them another category. Some things are hard to demonstrate to some people's satisfaction, and this would be another one. Some native Africans and later a couple of researchers were convinced that elephants communicated over long, long distances. Science did not accept this. Then later scientists in general did. Perhaps telepathy say, is like this (in terms of us not knowing, not that the mechanism is the same). The elephants did not have a supernatural power. What they did was something that some people could not be convinced was real, until it could be.

There are many useless/empty terms in the English language.

I do not really see why this is a thread. Equally empty and useless? ;)

Tom storm and universeness suffer from enlightenment. It's highly infectious and most people here have it. — unenlightened

Do you also have this benevolent infection or do you really consider yourself as your 'handle' suggests, unenlightened?

The ancient regime had a triple concept at its root of God, Man, and Nature. (Or the supernatural, the human, and the natural.) Having a three legged philosophy is always a good idea for stability, — unenlightened

What a bizarre and somewhat illogical concoction.
Are these three legs you concoct of equal status, do they provide equal contributions of strength and 'stability' via your tripod metaphor?
In your imagery man, is the equal of god. God is merely a tripod leg even though it is posited as creating the nature leg and from the 'ground dust' produces by the nature leg, god fashioned the man leg.
Surely god should get to be more that a mere leg in your tripod stabiliser and exactly what is it stabilising? Nature (the Universe). So nature is a leg used to stabilise nature? along with man (produced from nature) and god (who fashioned nature and man). Not a very logical concoction.

Thus if 'supernatural' refers to nothing, 'natural' refers to everything, and both terms lose their meaning — unenlightened

It is not possible to refer to nothing. It's a logical fallacy. 'Nothing' is a concept, where existence has no meaning, and therefore, it cannot be logically referenced. Supernatural does not refer to nothing.
I simply suggest that that which is supernatural, has never been evidenced in such a way that it stands up to scientific scrutiny.
I am prone to making emotive comments like 'the supernatural does not exist' or 'god does not exist,' just like anyone else is prone to emotive commentary but I will normally reduce that to something less emotive such as 'well, I am strongly convinced that the supernatural or/and gods don't exist.' If you push further then I will state my 'level of conviction indicator,' as the by now, well-known and emotive, 99.9%

“Supernatural” as an empty, useless term. — OP

The Wittgensteinian take on philosophy and language - words are empty, the are missing essences. Sunyata. They're like signs that point to nowhere!

I would suggest that the term 'supernatural,' is a useless term when it is used as a reference to gods/devils/the undead(from ghosts, to zombies and vampires etc)/magic/human mediums etc.

BUT I think the idea of CURRENTLY 'above' what we accept as 'natural,' is a very valid and useful use/redefinition of the term. I am also attracted to stealing words from theism (sorry @Clarky) who has said that I am too disrespectful towards theists. Perhaps I am but they have been quite lethal towards nonbelievers in the past and still are in far too many countries.

I would suggest something like this:


could summarise that which I would currently label as supernatural.
If you listen to the individuals in this 'closer to truth' episode, then I would glean my list of supernatural or currently above what seems natural in classical Newtonian mechanics as:

1. Superposition.
2. Entanglement.
3. Quantum Tunneling

I am sure others could add to this list with 'multiverse, superstrings etc.
This could prise the word 'supernatural' out of the hands of the 'woo woo' peddlers and into the realm of 'science that we don't know enough about yet.' Waddyaallfink?' I can hear the click and whirs of many weapons starting to reposition toward my direction. Do I have any defenders?

It is not possible to refer to nothing. — universeness

Your statement here is performative contradiction. Go and ask your bank what it means to have nothing in your account, and they will explain it to you.

'the supernatural does not exist' or 'god does not exist,' just like anyone else is prone to emotive commentary but I will normally reduce that to something less emotive such as 'well, I am strongly convinced that the supernatural or/and gods don't exist.' If you push further then I will state my 'level of conviction indicator,' as the by now, well-known and emotive, 99.9% — universeness

Yes, that is depressingly normal. So if the supernatural does not exist, it seems to follow that everything is natural. And this means that the term 'natural' does not make a distinction such that some things are natural, and some things are supernatural. And that means that in saying X is natural, one is not saying anything about X. One simply cannot have one half of a distinction and not the other half - left without right, true without false, this is how concepts work, by carving the world up.

Saying 'everything is natural' is equivalent to saying 'everything is', and the term 'natural' adds nothing, because it has no meaning. But you continue to use the term as if you are saying something profound, and as you say, deeply felt. It's not your fault, it's the result of the religious thinking out of which science was born and which it now usurps without much understanding.

If you would like to make a small adjustment that would save the situation at almost no cost to your scientistic philosophy, you simply say that you have no knowledge of the supernatural. This is called 'agnosticism', and allows you to be sceptical of other folk's claims about the supernatural and yet keep the meaning of the natural world coherent. At this point, the supernatural does indeed become 'whereof one cannot speak', but one cannot speak to deny or affirm.

New Theology has no use for the concept of the supernatural — Art48

What do you consider "new theology"? is there an example of a new religion?

Until we know for certain the limits of the natural universe, we cannot know if something is beyond its limits — Art48

sounds logical, but we know it's impossible to reach the ends of the universe and fathom beyond smallest thing which is singularity.

Your argument proves only that supernatural does not mean unknown natural.

@universeness
...Therefore you are wrong because you limit supernatural to undiscovered natural without knowing the limits of natural, no?

Are the Jesus miracles doable with modern (bio)tech?

For starters...

Healing lepers: Dapsone + Clofazamine + Rifampicin

Curing blindness: LASIK/Cataract surgery/Corneal transplants

:snicker:

Are the Jesus miracles doable with modern (bio)tech?

For starters...

Healing lepers: Dapsone + Clofazamine + Rifampicin

Curing blindness: LASIK/Cataract surgery/Corneal transplants — Agent Smith

If you define "miracle" as something that only God can do then you might have a point.

otherwise the closest you can get with this is that somehow Jesus was a doctor few thousands year ahead of others or that there was treatment that is now lost in time.

Miracles, in my humble opinion, are temporally bound i.e. they seem to have a validity date. Man becomes god!

I simply suggest that that which is supernatural, has never been evidenced in such a way that it stands up to scientific scrutiny. — universeness

Pretty much. The idea of the supernatural is simply phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature.

Can anyone demonstrate the existence of a single supernatural entity or phenomenon?

from Wiki:

The supernatural is featured in folklore and religious contexts, but can also feature as an explanation in more secular contexts, as in the cases of superstitions or belief in the paranormal. The term is attributed to non-physical entities, such as angels, demons, gods, and spirits. It also includes claimed abilities embodied in or provided by such beings, including magic, telekinesis, levitation, precognition, and extrasensory perception.

I am not aware of any evidence that establishes the truth of any of the above. I wouldn't say that there is no supernatural, but I would say there is no reason to believe such claims until there is good reason.

For those jokers who think that you can't use the term supernatural because we don't know the limits of nature, we can simply turn that around and say no theists can also know there is a god until they know the limits of nature and can properly rule out that what they call creation isn't just an entirely natural phenomenon.

Space Dweller: What do you consider "new theology"?

Glad you asked.
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf

“Supernatural” means above and beyond the natural world. It’s a valid, internally consistent concept. It’s also an empty, useless concept because we do not know the limits of the natural. We do not possess the means of verifying that some phenomenon is, in fact, above and beyond the natural world.

We have yet to discover all that is possible. We may believe phenomena such as lightning, walking on water, riding a winged horse, or rising from the dead are phenomena beyond nature, but we cannot know it. In the past, we might have believed someone in Africa could not have a real-time conversation with someone in South America. We might have believed that we would never be able to ask a tiny handheld box for directions home. Today, mobile phones routinely perform both tasks.

Old Theology ontologies often include supernatural beings and places: Gods and demons, heaven and hell, Bodhisattvas and nirvana. New Theology has no use for the concept of the supernatural. Until we know for certain the limits of the natural universe, we cannot know if something is beyond its limits. — Art48

The natural order of things more or less maintains that EVERYTHING that exists has to obey certain laws. If something was able to do things that broke these laws it would be something beyond the way we currently understand them. However even if we didn't understand how such phenomenon worked it wouldn't necessarily mean that they are "supernatural".

Take for example the phenomenon of ghosts. Many people through out the world report seeing ghost and sometimes they even manage to take photographs of them. Even if they do exist, their existence may not break the natural order of things if somehow their existence can be understood and explained through scientific means. However even if they can be understood, there is a decent chance that such phenomenon happen through means that different than how we currently understand how we understand natural phenomenon. For example are they created somehow through the process of when someone dies and some residue and/or energy from that person still remains and can interact with the world around us or are they somehow created through through our own minds through something like our own psychic abilities. If either of these where true it would likely result in the rewriting of how we currently explain "natural" phenomenon.

Another example would be the existence of "magic". As far as we know "magic" does not exist (other than sleight of hand or other tricks), but if it did exist it and we would require us to change how we understand and explain natural phenomenon.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is there is a grey area of science were we kind of understand and explain things as well as things we really can't understand or explain things that well. In this area there very well may be phenomenon that borders what we today consider to be natural phenomenon and phenomenon that behaves in a way things that we use to consider to be "supernatural" such as ghosts, magic, etc.. Because of this difference between the two phenomenon it is still kind of important that we reserve the word "supernatural" for things that are beyond how we currently understand them.

While it is true that as time goes on we may be able to understand certain phenomenon that can not be explained with how we currently understand them and may even be able to produce technology that utilizes the processes that enables such phenomenon to exist, it is important to understand since we currently don't know how and or why they exist that they are phenomenon that are currently beyond our understanding and their existence could change the way we look and understand the world around us.

I hope you understand this and can appreciate this distinction between what is classified as natural and "supernatural" phenomenon. While "supernatural" phenomenon may not actually be "supernatural", it is different enough from what we consider to be natural phenomenon for us to make note of such a differences.