Supernatural does it exist?

[Mentor]

Your definitions are a bit off.

- Nature isn't all of existence, but what occurs or has come into existence naturally without superior interference (e.g. manmade objects are not naturally made objects, their components perhaps, but not the object itself. These objects would be classed as nature and natural in your definitions.

Indeed, i would class these items as natural, humans are not super natural beings, we do not have any powers or attributes above any other naturally occurring lifeform on the planet. I generally subscribe to Humes definition of natural, and don't follow the idea that many humans seem to have of humanities supposed superiority to the rest of nature. We don't consider the rocks birds use to smash open snails as super natural, so why should we think such a thing of a computer or car just because its humans that make and use them as tools?

- Natural is not strictly what occurs in nature, but what occurs or has come into existence naturally, as said above.

All things come in to existence naturally, if not, then i would claim they never occurred.

- Your definition of supernatural more closely matches unnatural definitions; supernatural is the addition of an unknown or abnormal 'believed' to be superior interference.

Which means pretty much the same thing? Things are ether natural, or not natural. Not half natural any more than something can be half existent. Its a boolean state?
Since non-natural things are fictitious / non real things, i think my definitions hold "/

* Wasn't sure if you were critiquing my post or using it to state your opinion, but just to say, I didn't envelop everything which is unknown to us, considering of course that there is no proof that our evolution or unexplainable 'nature' has been influenced by unknown interference, therefore it's sceptical to state that unknown areas of nature are supernatural as we don't know if there has been that interference.

In was more referring to the person i was responding to (quoted individual)
That said i would totally disagree, if hypothetically a god exists, then he is a natural force by definition, so even that cannot lead to the possibility of something super(beyond) natural occurring.
Its semantically impossible no matter how you play it "/

Equally ignorance / not knowing cannot be used to prove/ague anything beyond the fact its something you don't know. Even more so it makes no sence to state something is beyond nature just because you dont understand the works, You aint got a clue how a computer works, but i doubt you'd put it down to some mystical force rather than hard science.

Also theres plenty of proof to how evolution works, how it happens and why? Its not something unknown in the slightest?

[RandomManJay]

Indeed, i would class these items as natural, humans are not super natural beings, we do not have any powers or attributes above any other naturally occurring lifeform on the planet. I generally subscribe to Humes definition of natural, and don't follow the idea that many humans seem to have of humanities supposed superiority to the rest of nature. We don't consider the rocks birds use to smash open snails as super natural, so why should we think such a thing of a computer or car just because its humans that make and use them as tools?


All things come in to existence naturally, if not, then i would claim they never occurred.

Which means pretty much the same thing? Things are ether natural, or not natural. Not half natural any more than something can be half existent. Its a boolean state?
Since non-natural things are fictitious / non real things, i think my definitions hold "/


In was more referring to the person i was responding to (quoted individual)
That said i would totally disagree, if hypothetically a god exists, then he is a natural force by definition, so even that cannot lead to the possibility of something super(beyond) natural occurring.
Its semantically impossible no matter how you play it "/

Equally ignorance / not knowing cannot be used to prove/ague anything beyond the fact its something you don't know. Even more so it makes no sence to state something is beyond nature just because you dont understand the works, You aint got a clue how a computer works, but i doubt you'd put it down to some mystical force rather than hard science.

Also theres plenty of proof to how evolution works, how it happens and why? Its not something unknown in the slightest?

You put forth good arguments, but I think you may have misunderstood me or I haven't included somethings I should have, therefore I'll explain my argument differently, the following paragraphs do not follow in relation your arguments:

From your arguments, you seem have a narrow view on the origin of objects, of course every object in existence is naturally based because its components are, but intelligent interference creates another form of object, for example; man-made objects, in almost every case, can be described as not being natural in origin as the object could not occur naturally without the intelligent interference. Using your example of a computer, no I don't know 'fully' how a computer works, but they are manmade and using our present understanding, computers do not occur naturally in the world we live in, therefore is it not natural but due to our understanding that it can be made using intelligent interference it can therefore be viewed as not supernatural. Take this example in a common saying that if you demonstrated your ability to create fire using a lighter and presented this to those of pre-history, most likely they would perceive you as something higher than a mere human, using it relation to the topic, they could perceive you are a supernatural being capable of unexplainable abilities at that time. I know the computer example can prove your view that it can be unnatural, but it can also prove that there are more origins than simply natural and unnatural as every object can be traced back to being natural depending on how far back you go into it's creation,

Your example of the birds cracking snail shells with rocks is another example which can be shown as not being supernatural, as I explained in my earlier post; supernatural events are events which appear to occur under the influence of intelligent interference which is not presently known to us. Intelligent interference is not limited to humanity as this is egotistical of humanity to make such a boast, therefore using your example, birds can be viewed as having this intelligence, which we are able to understand and accept, therefore birds cracking snail shells is not perceived as being supernatural.

From describing what I stated in the top paragraph, I will describe how your definition supernatural can be confusing. Any object which is created via man or any other animal capable of intelligent interference can be viewed as being unnatural, but this is where your definition becomes confusing as you stated that supernatural is where something does not occur in nature, which is the definition of unnatural, but supernatural is something which occurs by intelligent interference which cannot, as yet be understood, therefore it cannot be unnatural because we cannot prove that intelligent interference has taken part and therefore can be viewed a natural. This also creates a problem as it cannot occur naturally without intelligent interference, so what can it be defined as. This is where supernatural definitions take place. As it cannot be proven to occur naturally and cannot be proven to be influenced by intelligent interference, an unexplainable intelligence must be in influencing it, one which is capable of a higher ability that humanity, therefore ‘super’ by definition (super as in, having a greater ability than humanity). Supernatural is a definition for unexplainable occurrences which cannot be explained as of yet. It justifies that the occurrence exists without intelligent interference, but rejects that it cannot exist without it, the occurrence rejects both natural and unnatural definitions, therefore an addition definition must be used until the occurrence can be explained, then it is capable of falling into either the natural or unnatural definitions. A supernatural example can be used in this, UFOs as said to travel at at least the speed of light, otherwise it would take immense amounts of time to travel, longer than our expected lifelines, but as yet we are unable to understand how this is possible. Because we do know that intellgent interfence must be taking part in this occurrence, its rejects the natural definition, but we are as yet uncapable of understanding this intelligent inteference, despite knowing it exists, therefore we must define it as supernatural is it is intelligent interference that is of a higher ability and comprehension than our own.

I would write more but it's 4am and I'm tired . I know I've left some loop holes in my arguments and the last example probably has the biggest one, but I had already wrote a lot of it when I noticed and couldn't be bothered to change it, I do have the knowing of the loop holes and ways to remove them, but I'll leave them open cause I can't be arsed to write anymore.

[Mentor]

You put forth good arguments, but I think you may have misunderstood me or I haven't included somethings I should have, therefore I'll explain my argument differently, the following paragraphs do not follow in relation your arguments:

From your arguments, you seem have a narrow view on the origin of objects, of course every object in existence is naturally based because its components are, but intelligent interference creates another form of object, for example; man-made objects, in almost every case, can be described as not being natural in origin as the object could not occur naturally without the intelligent interference. Using your example of a computer, no I don't know 'fully' how a computer works, but they are manmade and using our present understanding, computers do not occur naturally in the world we live in, therefore is it not natural but due to our understanding that it can be made using intelligent interference it can therefore be viewed as not supernatural. Take this example in a common saying that if you demonstrated your ability to create fire using a lighter and presented this to those of pre-history, most likely they would perceive you as something higher than a mere human, using it relation to the topic, they could perceive you are a supernatural being capable of unexplainable abilities at that time. I know the computer example can prove your view that it can be unnatural, but it can also prove that there are more origins than simply natural and unnatural as every object can be traced back to being natural depending on how far back you go into it's creation,

Your example of the birds cracking snail shells with rocks is another example which can be shown as not being supernatural, as I explained in my earlier post; supernatural events are events which appear to occur under the influence of intelligent interference which is not presently known to us. Intelligent interference is not limited to humanity as this is egotistical of humanity to make such a boast, therefore using your example, birds can be viewed as having this intelligence, which we are able to understand and accept, therefore birds cracking snail shells is not perceived as being supernatural.

From describing what I stated in the top paragraph, I will describe how your definition supernatural can be confusing. Any object which is created via man or any other animal capable of intelligent interference can be viewed as being unnatural, but this is where your definition becomes confusing as you stated that supernatural is where something does not occur in nature, which is the definition of unnatural, but supernatural is something which occurs by intelligent interference which cannot, as yet be understood, therefore it cannot be unnatural because we cannot prove that intelligent interference has taken part and therefore can be viewed a natural. This also creates a problem as it cannot occur naturally without intelligent interference, so what can it be defined as. This is where supernatural definitions take place. As it cannot be proven to occur naturally and cannot be proven to be influenced by intelligent interference, an unexplainable intelligence must be in influencing it, one which is capable of a higher ability that humanity, therefore ‘super’ by definition (super as in, having a greater ability than humanity). Supernatural is a definition for unexplainable occurrences which cannot be explained as of yet. It justifies that the occurrence exists without intelligent interference, but rejects that it cannot exist without it, the occurrence rejects both natural and unnatural definitions, therefore an addition definition must be used until the occurrence can be explained, then it is capable of falling into either the natural or unnatural definitions. A supernatural example can be used in this, UFOs as said to travel at at least the speed of light, otherwise it would take immense amounts of time to travel, longer than our expected lifelines, but as yet we are unable to understand how this is possible. Because we do know that intellgent interfence must be taking part in this occurrence, its rejects the natural definition, but we are as yet uncapable of understanding this intelligent inteference, despite knowing it exists, therefore we must define it as supernatural is it is intelligent interference that is of a higher ability and comprehension than our own.

I would write more but it's 4am and I'm tired . I know I've left some loop holes in my arguments and the last example probably has the biggest one, but I had already wrote a lot of it when I noticed and couldn't be bothered to change it, I do have the knowing of the loop holes and ways to remove them, but I'll leave them open cause I can't be arsed to write anymore.

To avoid this getting to convoluted and long winded im going to avoid dissecting, and try and get at the gist of the difference here.
From what i can tell, are main disagreement seems to be on how we are scaling are definitions. Your definitions of natural/beyond natural are firmly related to humans, while mine are related directly to nature itself.

Since i conciser humans, and the intelligence that comes with them as a natural occurrence, humans and all they create, in my view, are as natural as a crow getting grubs with a stick. Equally any technological advances made by non human life throughout existence, in my view, would also fall under the definition of natural.

So to try and clarify my view (its 4 am here too :p may try again when awake)
If something exists, it must obay natural laws. Its true we do not yet know or understand exactly what many of these laws are. But these laws do exist, and are essential for a stable universe to exist.
By obay natural laws, and working on principles that can be understood (even if they are not yet know), i would then define this a natural. Nothing can exist that can disobay these natural laws. Instead all somthing that appears to violate these laws goes to prove is that we have misunderstood a law or failed to account for something, thus the so called supernatural event is not supernatural but entirely natural. Its just are understanding that must have been wrong.
Which is where my view appears to differ from yours as you *i think* take natural to be defined by are human understanding of nature (thus when are view is wrong, we get somthing that would class as supernatural) as opposed to my view where it is simply are human understanding that is counted as wrong, and i take whatever event has gone against are beliefs to simply be proof we made a mistake.

I'm pretty sure ive failed to put over exactly what im trying to say so may have another go tomorrow. Sorry for the disjointed fail-brain dump :p

[RandomManJay]

To avoid this getting to convoluted and long winded im going to avoid dissecting, and try and get at the gist of the difference here.
From what i can tell, are main disagreement seems to be on how we are scaling are definitions. Your definitions of natural/beyond natural are firmly related to humans, while mine are related directly to nature itself.

Since i conciser humans, and the intelligence that comes with them as a natural occurrence, humans and all they create, in my view, are as natural as a crow getting grubs with a stick. Equally any technological advances made by non human life throughout existence, in my view, would also fall under the definition of natural.

So to try and clarify my view (its 4 am here too :p may try again when awake)
If something exists, it must obay natural laws. Its true we do not yet know or understand exactly what many of these laws are. But these laws do exist, and are essential for a stable universe to exist.
By obay natural laws, and working on principles that can be understood (even if they are not yet know), i would then define this a natural. Nothing can exist that can disobay these natural laws. Instead all somthing that appears to violate these laws goes to prove is that we have misunderstood a law or failed to account for something, thus the so called supernatural event is not supernatural but entirely natural. Its just are understanding that must have been wrong.
Which is where my view appears to differ from yours as you *i think* take natural to be defined by are human understanding of nature (thus when are view is wrong, we get somthing that would class as supernatural) as opposed to my view where it is simply are human understanding that is counted as wrong, and i take whatever event has gone against are beliefs to simply be proof we made a mistake.

I'm pretty sure ive failed to put over exactly what im trying to say so may have another go tomorrow. Sorry for the disjointed fail-brain dump :p

I do think I understand where you're coming from, to you intelligence is a natural occurrence in the universe therefore everything which is encompased within that intelligence is natural as well. I've never heard of this view before but it is quite unique and interesting. From looking at what you've said, I would most likely agree with you in this respect as I've never thought to look at nature in this way .

[Nxrissa]

i dont belive in anything like this.

[Accipiter]

Im scared of big paragraphs SHORTEN THEM LOL!

[RandomManJay]

Im scared of big paragraphs SHORTEN THEM LOL!

I can be very long winded, sorry