thanks, interesting book.
this proves atheism with the help of science is forming a new religion.

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. — unenlightened

No, it's not my statement that's a performative contradiction, it is a statement such as 'nothing is something' or the concept 'nothing' exists. Just like the term 'solipsism' is a performative contradiction.

So if the supernatural does not exist, it seems to follow that everything is natural. — unenlightened

Yes, correct! Including all knowledge that humans have yet to discover!

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. — unenlightened

This just seems like desperation to hold on to your own attraction to or need for the supernatural.
Are you afraid of oblivion after you die when you have no knowledge of it before you were born?

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. — unenlightened

I don't mind the term 'agnosticism,' it's an advance from theist or theosophist etc but it's too weak for me as my level of conviction is much higher than the average agnostic. Atheist for me, is a much more accurate label. I am sure you also reserve the right to choose labels that best fit your viewpoints no matter if I or/and others might judge them to be logically challenged.

Therefore you are wrong because you limit supernatural to undiscovered natural without knowing the limits of natural, no? — SpaceDweller

Right back at you, as we don't know the limits of 'natural,' so we think

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

We don't know such is impossible because we can even clearly define what such IS yet.

I agree with all you typed here Tom :up:

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)] — Agent Smith

I think i more or less agree. Modern religion is having a hard time trying to prove that any "supernatural" event and/or being isn't anything more than any other natural phenomenon that we currently experience but just beyond how we currently understand them. In other words it is a given that things that we considered to be gods, "God", etc. always have some little man hiding behind a curtain pulling levers masquerading to be something beyond our world yelling at us to not look behind the curtain.

However, there is still a chance for us to be in awe of even natural phenomenon if it involves something well beyond our means of understanding of the world as we know it. For example the phenomenon of UFOs seems to suggest that there are aerial vehicles that are sometimes in our sky and are produced by technology that we currently can produce. Even if such things are not produced through "supernatural" means, understanding their existence better than what we currently do could create a paradigm shift in how we see the world around us. While such a shift would not be in the order of something like a real "supernatural" phenomenon, it is almost on the same level.

Words like Pegasus prompt us to differentiate fictional/imaginary and real.
The winged horse does exist (in stories) but just isn't real.

Seems to me the word "supernatural" can more or less be replaced with "unknown" without incurring any informative loss.
As an explanation, when has "supernatural" ever done away with ignorance/errors?

For example the phenomenon of UFOs seems to suggest that there are aerial vehicles that are sometimes in our sky and are produced by technology that we currently can produce. Even if such things are not produced through "supernatural" means, understanding their existence better than what we currently do could create a paradigm shift in how we see the world around us. — dclements

This could benefit from some unpacking. UAP's are not known to be vehicles - that is assuming too much. They are, as the acronym spells out; unidentified areal phenomenon. And there may be a range of different explanations for different sightings, many explanations being terrestrial.

And here's the thing - you mention how they might lead to a paradigm shift. How might that be? Firstly, there is an assumption here that we are seeing technology which is advanced and potentially not human (or some similar narrative). And for the paradigm shift to take place, we would require physical proof or some other physical interaction that provides us with a fuller understanding of what UAP's are. In other words, good evidence.

I have often wondered if we can count UAP's as supernatural (remembering the word is not a philosophical term but more a common usage, or journalistic term). If UAP's are found to be able to defy the laws of physics, then maybe.

This just seems like desperation to hold on to your own attraction to or need for the supernatural. — universeness

I didn't read it that way. The OP states the supernatural is an empty useless term, but the existence of the supernatural isn't necessary for the term to have meaning or use.

If the world consists entirely of X and only X and we speak of there being exactly two categories of X, X(a) and X(b), and we learn there are no X(b)s, we can cease referencing to X(a) and just say X. If howevee we continue to refer to X(b), even just to declare it doesn’t exist, it has usage and meaning.

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

‘Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature’ ~ St Augustine

‘Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature’ ~ St Augustine — Wayfarer

Filing away.

I didn't read it that way. The OP states the supernatural is an empty useless term, but the existence of the supernatural isn't necessary for the term to have meaning or use. — Hanover

Well, I am certainly not immune to misinterpreting the meaning of others. Clarification from the source is usually the road to solution of such misinterpretation.
I think I have been clear in my typings that I think it is a useless term when it is used to refer to woo woo. But I think it could be a useful term if it was disconnected from woo woo.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by the 'existence of the supernatural,' so that it can be clearly understood what alternative 'meaning or use' the term can have in your opinion.

If the world consists entirely of X and only X and we speak of there being exactly two categories of X, X(a) and X(b — Hanover

I find this confusing if your X = 'natural' as X(a) and X(b) would then have to be subcategories of natural.
Surely the contest is between x=natural and y=supernatural.
If y doesn't exist, then sure you can still reference it as a nonexistent, just like winged horses, orcs and elves or the word nothing.
@unenlightened exemplified not having money in your bank account as a possible use of the term 'nothing.' But having no money does not negate the existence of money just like having an empty tin of beans does not mean beans don't exist in the same way as the literal term 'nothing,' which is logically self-contradictory. Logically, 'nothing,' cannot have a reference to it.

Logically, 'nothing,' cannot have a reference to it. — universeness

Why do you keep referring to it?

‘Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature’ ~ St Augustine

So as what we know of nature expands, so-called miracles disappear.
Case in point: lightning.

I think that what he have to consider, is that in our experience, observation, and evidence, what we call "the natural", is observed to consist of things which are caused. If "natural" things necessarily have a cause, and a cause is necessarily something other than its effect, then we must allow for a class of things which is other than "natural". We do not need to call this class "supernatural", but the name is fitting.

However, there are some who would insist that natural things need not be caused, rejecting the principle of sufficient reason, attributing the existence of all naturally occurring things to some random fluctuation or a similar random event in a chaotic pool of randomness. But this approach stipulates that nature is inherently unintelligible, having no reason or cause for natural existence. Therefore it is counter-productive to the philosophical mind, which has the desire to know, extinguishing the desire to know by designating knowledge of this cause as impossible. I.e., there is no such cause. So such a position is extremely repugnant to a philosopher. And philosophers readily accept the reality of the supernatural as a logically necessary principle.

find this confusing if your X = 'natural' as X(a) and X(b) would then have to be subcategories of natural.
Surely the contest is between x=natural and y=supernatural.
If y doesn't exist, then sure you can still reference it as a nonexistent, just like winged horses, orcs and elves or the word nothing. — universeness

X = everything. X(b) world include the non-exustent, like elves, ghosts, and gods.

And so that's the point. The lack of a physical referent does not, as the OP argues, dissolve the term into uselessness. If it did, when you said "supernatural," I would look at you confused, as if you uttered gobblygook.

Don't read this as a suggestion that because the term supernatural is useful and non-empty that there must be elves. I'm not uttering objects into existence.

If "natural" things necessarily have a cause, and a cause is necessarily something other than its effect, then we must allow for a class of things which is other than "natural" — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is why things which are not caused can't be empirically proved?

RE: “Supernatural” as an empty, useless term
SUBTOPIC: Definition and conveyed Meaning.
⁜→ et al,

“Supernatural” means above and beyond the natural world. — ”Art48”

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. — ”Angelo Cannata”

The fact that we don't know the limits of the natural doesn't matter - supernatural is a provisional term — ”Tom Strom”

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. — ”universeness”

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

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'.

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

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"

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

Seems to me the word "supernatural" can more or less be replaced with "unknown" without incurring any informative loss. — ”jorndoe”

‘Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature’
~ St Augustine — ”Wayfarer”

(COMMENT)

The utility and definition (meaning) of the term "supernatural" is a matter of "context." The intention of the term is very dependent on what the communicator intended to convey and what the receiver of the communication actually understands.

I think, for the most part, all the contributors made some very thought-provoking commentary.

Excluding the introduction of "Dark Energy/Matter" and "Exotic Particles" or the duality (wave vs particle) concepts of the supernatural component, which most religions have, imply some tangible aspect (detectable energy) acting as a cause. IF you can "see" an apparition THEN there is some form of energy involved. That is true even if the energy is divinely inspired. And that is where the natural laws of the universe become ensnarled. The Abrahamic Religions have foundational beliefs that involve the supernational (and sometimes alchemy). In Matthew 14:13-21, there is a description of a compound event in which both the supernatural and alchemy seemed to have been enterlaced.
____________________________________________________________
CONTEXTUAL SUPPORT NOTES

David Hume defined the term "MIRACLE" as a violation of a law of
nature by a supernatural agent. (Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion Copyright © 2010 Charles Taliaferro, Elsa J. Marty and contributors, pp151 )

SUPERNATURAL From the Latin super, “above” and natura, “nature.” Refers to God or gods or incorporeal agents such as angels or demons. Because “supernatural” is sometimes associated with the “superstitious,” some use the term “supra-natural” to refer to God and/or other realities that are beyond corporeal, cosmic agents. (Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion Copyright © 2010 Charles Taliaferro, Elsa J. Marty and contributors, pp222 )

COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE [astronomy] (1) The universe is uniform, homogeneous, and isotropic* (2) The presence of intelligent life on Earth places limits on the many ways the universe could have developed and could have caused the conditions of temperature that prevails today.5 (3) Our existence necessarily puts some constraints on the evolution of the universe.^ (4) Associated anthropic coincidences support the thesis that God exists and does not support supernaturalism."
(Dictionary of scientific principles / by Stephen Marvin Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp60)

ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE [astronomy, genetics](Brandon Carter, b. 1942; theoretical physicist, British mathematician) (1) The nature of the universe is constrained because of our presence as observers. (2) Life, even if abundant on many worlds, is only an infinitesimal portion of t h e cosmos. The presence of intelligent life on Earth places limits on the many ways the universe could have developed and could have caused t h e prevailing conditions. (Dictionary of scientific principles / by Stephen Marvin Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp9)

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep referring to it? — unenlightened

To illustrate the point!
Many people constantly reference nonexistents such as god or ghosts or winged horses.
They are constructing or relaying a fable or they are trying to convince others that a nonexistent exists.
In my case, I am trying to convince others that nonexistents don't exist based mainly on the logical inference of the term.

However, there are some who would insist that natural things need not be caused, rejecting the principle of sufficient reason, attributing the existence of all naturally occurring things to some random fluctuation or a similar random event in a chaotic pool of randomness. But this approach stipulates that nature is inherently unintelligible, having no reason or cause for natural existence. Therefore it is counter-productive to the philosophical mind, which has the desire to know, extinguishing the desire to know by designating knowledge of this cause as impossible. I.e., there is no such cause. So such a position is extremely repugnant to a philosopher. And philosophers readily accept the reality of the supernatural as a logically necessary principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you assign arrogant status to humans. I am not convinced 'nature' cares about the 'state' or dissatisfied status of the philosophical or even the scientific mind. I think you need to demote humans a little in their role in the natural world. The Universe may contain many intelligent species.
Science does not insist 'natural things need not be caused'
Sentient life did have a cause on this planet, science does not know exactly how that happened yet but perhaps they will in time. Many in science argue against the idea that the natural universe needs a FIRST CAUSE.
Philosophers will simply have to 'suck up' their feelings of repugnancy until science can provide them with more of the knowledge they seek.

I am trying to convince others that nonexistents don't exist — universeness

You'll be telling us next that the pope is Catholic and bears shit in the woods. :cool:

Don't read this as a suggestion that because the term supernatural is useful and non-empty that there must be elves. I'm not uttering objects into existence — Hanover

Ok, so what's wrong with attempts to redefine/restrict the term supernatural as a reference to 'that which science cannot yet offer an answer to.' The word would signify a solution that is CURRENTLY above the capacity of science but the solution IS part of the natural world the solution is not UNNATURAL, in the sense of god, commonly and ridiculously imo, described as 'outside of space and time.'

You'll be telling us next that the pope is Catholic and bears shit in the woods — unenlightened

The Pope is the inheritor of the residue of the Roman empire and represents a very rich, very sinister organisation. As for bears, they shit anywhere they like!
If you see the contents of my posts on this thread as obvious truths then, I am happy that your fog has cleared.

If you see the contents of my posts on this thread as obvious truths then... — universeness

Sadly not. That nonexistents don't exist is fairly obvious, but it is equally obvious that you can refer to them, because you keep doing so.

Sadly not — unenlightened

Why does your opinion that I am wrong in my main viewpoint on this thread make you sad?
The opinion you are expressing does not make me sad.

That nonexistents don't exist is fairly obvious, but it is equally obvious that you can refer to them, because you keep doing so — unenlightened

We were discussing the logic of such references, not the human ability to utter or type such references.
I take it that you are quite familiar with people making utterances or typing that which you deem illogical.
You have already suggested you place me in such a category based on my typings on this thread.
We are both ok with that, yes?

We are both ok with that, yes? — universeness

Sadly, it seems you are. I can only leave you to your nonsense at this point.

X = everything. — Hanover

Btw, for me, X= everything is synonymous with X=natural.

Sadly, it seems you are. I can only leave you to your nonsense at this point — unenlightened

It's a shame you experience these bouts of sadness. Yes, you have the power to leave me to your 'nonsense,' at this point. Do you consider such power, supernatural?

Don't read this as a suggestion that because the term supernatural is useful and non-empty that there must be elves. I'm not uttering objects into existence. — Hanover

As I was saying earlier, one does not need to posit elves, angels or miracles. Rather, one posits human subjectivity as a moral dimension that is distinct from nature. This preserves the old meaning of the term "nature" as excluding the man-made, because humans have 'a higher nature'. Which is to say that we are not slaves to our physicality. At which point the miracle is that we can tend to the physical.

When Bankei was preaching at Ryumon temple, a Shinshu priest, who believed in salvation through the repitition of the name of the Buddha of Love, was jealous of his large audience and wanted to debate with him.

Bankei was in the midst of a talk when the priest appeared, but the fellow made such a disturbance that bankei stopped his discourse and asked about the noise.

"The founder of our sect," boasted the priest, "had such miraculous powers that he held a brush in his hand on one bank of the river, his attendant held up a paper on the other bank, and the teacher wrote the holy name of Amida through the air. Can you do such a wonderful thing?"

Bankei replied lightly: "Perhaps your fox can perform that trick, but that is not the manner of Zen. My miracle is that when I feel hungry I eat, and when I feel thirsty I drink."

https://ashidakim.com/zenkoans/80therealmiracle.html

The miracle is to walk on Earth.
~ Nhat Hanh

This preserves the old meaning of the term "nature" as excluding the man-made, because humans have 'a higher nature'. — unenlightened

In your nature/man/God division, the above distinguishes between nature and man, but not God. The God category though is the question of the OP, which refers to it as the "supernatural." It is clear what we mean by nature and by man, with a trip to nature being a trip to Yellowstone National Park and a trip to the man-made to Disneyland.

In common parlance, we mean nothing metaphysical by the nature/man distinction. We just note the two categories, even if ultimately humans are part of nature and Disneyland is as natural as a park.

Should I be stranded in the wild, unable to cross a river back to civilization, finding a fallen tree bridging the river would be a lucky event, with some debating whether it was a natural event and others supernatural divine intervention,, but whether it was man-made would be simply an empirical inquiry, looking for evidence of saw marks and the like.

The point here is that we do need to talk about elves and angels if we want to maintain the natural/supernatural distinction. Talk of the subjective and the moral only protects the supernatural for those who think it the result of something beyond humanity, not just a creation of humanity. The supernatural is beyond nature and humanity. That's just how we use the word.