The word "supernatural"

[Meow Mix]

What does the word "supernatural" mean?

This will come down to what the word "natural" means.

As far as I can see, the only useful context of the word "natural" is in contrast to the term "artificial."

For instance, if "supernatural" is a violation of physical laws, that just means that we didn't understand the laws in the first place. To give an analogy, let's say that someone is learning the rules of chess by watching some people play it in the park. The "natural laws" they deduce are the rules that they can plainly see: bishops move in diagonal motions, rooks in horizontal and vertical motions, etc.

Then, just when they think they have it mostly figured out, something strange happens like a pawn moves diagonally (to capture) or a king and rook move at the same time, with the king moving through a piece and while moving more than one space (castling). They might say, "Something supernatural happened!" but that isn't true; it's just that they never fully understood the laws in the first place.

So, what is "supernatural?" How is this word meaningful in any sense?

 

[Revoltingest]

Hows 'bout the one I use:
Supernatural: Things which exist outside of the natural world, but perhaps might interact with the natural world in ways which don't obey physical laws.

 

[Meow Mix]

Hows 'bout the one I use:
Supernatural: Things which exist outside of the natural world, but perhaps might interact with the natural world in ways which don't obey physical laws.

What is the "natural world?"

 

[Revoltingest]

What is the "natural world?"

I consider the "material world" to be another name for the "natural world".

 

[Tol]

I'm not sure of the etymology, but I think supra (above, beyond + nature) would be the correct prefix. Super-natural would, too me, mean "very natural".

 

[Storm]

What does the word "supernatural" mean?

This will come down to what the word "natural" means.

As far as I can see, the only useful context of the word "natural" is in contrast to the term "artificial."

For instance, if "supernatural" is a violation of physical laws, that just means that we didn't understand the laws in the first place. To give an analogy, let's say that someone is learning the rules of chess by watching some people play it in the park. The "natural laws" they deduce are the rules that they can plainly see: bishops move in diagonal motions, rooks in horizontal and vertical motions, etc.

Then, just when they think they have it mostly figured out, something strange happens like a pawn moves diagonally (to capture) or a king and rook move at the same time, with the king moving through a piece and while moving more than one space (castling). They might say, "Something supernatural happened!" but that isn't true; it's just that they never fully understood the laws in the first place.

So, what is "supernatural?" How is this word meaningful in any sense?

The assumption that events are always goverend by natural law, even when we don't understand it, is still an assumption. I happen to make it myself, and reject supernaturalism because of it, but the truth is we have no way of knowing. Maybe we're wrong, maybe it really is supernatural.

 

[Erebus]

Hows 'bout the one I use:
Supernatural: Things which exist outside of the natural world, but perhaps might interact with the natural world in ways which don't obey physical laws.

The problem here is that just because we've established what we think physical law entails doesn't mean we've got it right. If something happens that violates what we considered an immutable law it simply means we got that law wrong. I'm of the opinion that since nothing can be "outside" of the natural world, the word supernatural loses a lot of it's meaning and begins to simply describe something we don't yet understand.

If the dead were to crawl from their graves tomorrow, we would have to concede that we had made a mistake in understanding exactly what death entails. We're constantly learning about and redefining our world.

 

[Meow Mix]

The problem here is that just because we've established what we think physical law entails doesn't mean we've got it right. If something happens that violates what we considered an immutable law it simply means we got that law wrong. I'm of the opinion that since nothing can be "outside" of the natural world, the word supernatural loses a lot of it's meaning and begins to simply describe something we don't yet understand.

If the dead were to crawl from their graves tomorrow, we would have to concede that we had made a mistake in understanding exactly what death entails. We're constantly learning about and redefining our world.

:clap This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Frubals

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, what is "supernatural?" How is this word meaningful in any sense?

In general, I personally think it means either "non-existent stuff" or "stuff we don't understand", but I've been thinking about it and I've come up with two ways that the term would have actual meaning, even though both are based on premises that I don't agree with:

- the natural and the supernatural are two distinct realms between which there is some interaction even though they're generally separate.

- "natural" refers to God's creation, which runs according to God-created physical laws. "supernatural" refers to everything else.

 

[Meow Mix]

I consider the "material world" to be another name for the "natural world".

But, say, logic isn't material. Is logic therefore supernatural?

Neither are mathematics, and I wouldn't say they're supernatural.

 

[Meow Mix]

The assumption that events are always goverend by natural law, even when we don't understand it, is still an assumption. I happen to make it myself, and reject supernaturalism because of it, but the truth is we have no way of knowing. Maybe we're wrong, maybe it really is supernatural.

But what is a "natural law?"

As opposed to what?

Let's drop the word "natural" and just say "laws." What's the difference? The word "supernatural" has no context (in my argument) because the word "natural" has no context (besides being an antonym for "artificial," which is unrelated).

If the word "natural" does have a context (besides with respect to "artificial"), what is it?

We can't define "natural" as "that which isn't supernatural" and then define "supernatural" as "that which is above nature." That doesn't solve anything!

 

[Storm]

but what is a "natural law?"

Gravity, evolution...

As opposed to what?

I dunno. Souls?

 

[Storm]

Haha! I caught your ninha edit!

Let's drop the word "natural" and just say "laws." What's the difference? The word "supernatural" has no context (in my argument) because the word "natural" has no context (besides being an antonym for "artificial," which is unrelated).

Well, Penguin articulated it pretty well, I thought:

"natural" refers to God's creation, which runs according to God-created physical laws. "supernatural" refers to everything else.

 

[Meow Mix]

In general, I personally think it means either "non-existent stuff" or "stuff we don't understand", but I've been thinking about it and I've come up with two ways that the term would have actual meaning, even though both are based on premises that I don't agree with:

But if supernatural is stuff we don't understand, does that mean X-rays were supernatural in 2000 BCE? Is Goldbach's conjecture supernatural?

- the natural and the supernatural are two distinct realms between which there is some interaction even though they're generally separate.

How are they qualitatively defined and separated if so?

- "natural" refers to God's creation, which runs according to God-created physical laws. "supernatural" refers to everything else.

But then if God intervened in something then it would still be God's creation and therefore "natural." This goes back to castling in chess appearing "supernatural," it's not -- it's just a rule that APPEARS to break other rules but doens't (because we didn't ever understand the other rules in the first place).

It's possible that I could quantum tunnel through my chair -- not likely, not even in 10 lifetimes of this universe -- but possible. If I did, would that be supernatural?

 

[Meow Mix]

Gravity, evolution...

What makes these laws "natural" laws?

I dunno. Souls?

What are those, and why are they qualitatively different from "natural" stuff?

It can't be immateriality unless we're willing to call logic and mathematics supernatural, too...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But what is a "natural law?"

As opposed to what?

Let's drop the word "natural" and just say "laws." What's the difference? The word "supernatural" has no context (in my argument) because the word "natural" has no context (besides being an antonym for "artificial," which is unrelated).

If the word "natural" does have a context (besides with respect to "artificial"), what is it?

We can't define "natural" as "that which isn't supernatural" and then define "supernatural" as "that which is above nature." That doesn't solve anything!

When I try to put myself in the shoes of someone who believes in the "supernatural", I don't think of it so much as different sets of laws in the "natural" and the "supernatural", but more about different realms with different types of behaviour.

As an analogy, think of "ocean" and "atmosphere" instead of "natural" and "supernatural": any physical law that's true in one domain is true in the other, but things in either realm behave in different ways.

Both air and water are fluids, but most of the time in water, compressibility can be ignored. In air, we can usually ignore buoyancy. This doesn't mean that different laws are in effect, but it does mean that the two realms will behave very differently.


I dunno. It's hard for me to argue for a point of view that I don't actually hold, but that's how I try to make sense of it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Haha! I caught your ninha edit!

I often post, read it, then immediately edit... not to be ninja but because I've grown not to trust "Preview Post" buttons after losing so many posts

I often edit so fast that it doesn't even put up the "Last edited..." thingy. It's just proofreading, not an attempt to be sneaky.

Well, Penguin articulated it pretty well, I thought:

Responded to that, check out my response (I was responding to it likely as you were typing this ;P)

 

[Revoltingest]

But, say, logic isn't material. Is logic therefore supernatural?
Neither are mathematics, and I wouldn't say they're supernatural.

By "material world", I refer not only to lumps of matter & energy, but also to emergent phenomena such as thought & our mental constructs.
Logic & mathematics are things which we (living in the material world) may test, so they are certainly part of that same material world.
Perhaps the very same math & logic we use are even part of the supernatural. But lacking access to it, I wouldn't know.

 

[Meow Mix]

When I try to put myself in the shoes of someone who believes in the "supernatural", I don't think of it so much as different sets of laws in the "natural" and the "supernatural", but more about different realms with different types of behaviour.

As an analogy, think of "ocean" and "atmosphere" instead of "natural" and "supernatural": any physical law that's true in one domain is true in the other, but things in either realm behave in different ways.

Both air and water are fluids, but most of the time in water, compressibility can be ignored. In air, we can usually ignore buoyancy. This doesn't mean that different laws are in effect, but it does mean that the two realms will behave very differently.


I dunno. It's hard for me to argue for a point of view that I don't actually hold, but that's how I try to make sense of it.

That would be a coherent system to an extent but it still requires massive amounts of qualitative definition, which I haven't seen. Without such boundaries the terms are meaningless, so if someone wants to argue that then they'd best get to work on establishing those boundaries...

 

[Storm]

What makes these laws "natural" laws?

The fact that they govern nature.

What are those, and why are they qualitatively different from "natural" stuff?

How the hell would I know?

It can't be immateriality unless we're willing to call logic and mathematics supernatural, too...

Why are you arguing points I haven't made?

Look, it makes no sense. That doesn't stop people believing in it, though.