Natural | Supernatural

C1ay · 05-19-2006

Where is the line between natural and supernatural? Many beliefs in the supernatural are claimed but what evidence is there of anything supernatural? Are natural events that are currently beyond our scope of knowledge supernatural just because we don't understand that aspect or property of nature yet? Those that invented and believed in the Fire God thought fire was supernatural but we know much better than that now. Why should we regard anything that we don't currently understand as being supernatural? Isn't this just an excuse to quit looking for the truth?

InfiniteNow · 05-19-2006

The line is located exactly at the border between that which exists and that which does not.

What exists is all natural. Anything "beyond" natural does not exist.

It's a way for people to feel less scared about that which they do not understand.

kmarinas86 · 05-20-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

The line is located exactly at the border between that which exists and that which does not.

What exists is all natural. Anything "beyond" natural does not exist.

It's a way for people to feel less scared about that which they do not understand.

So everything that no longer exists (but used to) is not all natural but supernatural? If that's the case, then the past would be decided on the basis of natural artifacts, but the original context of those artifacts (subject to disappear due to the natural law of temporal change) would be lost and hence in the realm of the supernatural. Now do you believe in your own definition (which by the way I agree with

)? It would prove that historical facts (information about events that happened but no longer exist) are exclusive of scientific facts (conclusions which are those stated principles which are believed to be timeless and pertain to no event in particular).

ronthepon · 05-20-2006

Maybe we could redefine it as everything that is assumed to exist but cannot because it violates scientific laws, or never had existed, just is assumed to be so.

ughaibu · 05-20-2006

And hypernatural, paranatural, metanatural, etc?

betrayer_of_hope · 05-20-2006

I think natural is basically the world we know, which we analyse and interact with. We go into the realm of the suprnatural when we start speculating. Eg:I guess most of Jules Vernes' stories, at ther time of publication, could be said to be dealing with the supernatural. But we know those things to be facts today.

C1ay · 05-20-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronthepon

Maybe we could redefine it as everything that is assumed to exist but cannot because it violates scientific laws, or never had existed, just is assumed to be so.

Why redefine it? Everything could be natural even if there are some things in nature that we don't understand. I question man's need to invoke the term "supernatural" to explain things we don't understand. Can't there be natural things we don't understand yet?

For example, if ghosts were/are real couldn't they be a natural phenomenon we just don't understand yet? Why regard them as supernatural instead of looking for a rational explanation for their natural existence. (Disclaimer: I do not claim a belief in ghosts.)

IMO, anything that does exist in reality is natural whether we understand it or not.

C1ay · 05-20-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by betrayer_of_hope

I think natural is basically the world we know, which we analyse and interact with.

I think nature is reality and the supernatural is fiction, i.e. everything real is natural.

ronthepon · 05-20-2006

Well, supernatural could also refer to phenomena that do not happen, but some say that they do, and strongly believe them.

For something to be supernatural we can consider:
1- It does not happen, because it violates science or rationalism, or because it is not a phenomena that has ever been actually observed.

2- It is firmly believed in by some people.

3- It may be associated with religion.

4- It is kinda mysterious...