I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

For the same reasons I have given repeatedly.Until you can show a way to differentiate between natural and supernatural then I see no way such a tape could exist.And we can't use the normal scientific methods as has been shown to you repeatedly.Gravity is an example. It could well be a supernatural agent pushing two objects together. Magnetism could be a supernatural agent that decides to hold stuff together or push it apart or simply ignore some objects. Until you can differentiate between gravity and supernatural pusher and magnetism and supernatural joker you cannot claim that the normal scientific method can be used to test the supernatural.

The Bible was and is metaphorical and symbolic. It is not a science book nor was it ever intended to be one. It is quite a decent psychology primer, however. People behaving badly.The creative metaphor is light. Im sure that super novas fit within this metaphor quite well...as does the process of illumination...the light bulb that goes on over our heads when we think of something new.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

No, I wouldn't call Dark Matter supernatural at the moment.
And, actually, I've changed my mind on the 'creation of matter' thing as well.I wouldn't necessarily call the creation of matter supernatural.However, if the creation of matter was caused by the will of an intelligent being, then I would call it supernatural. I need to amend my definitions, again, to now say:

• Natural: The state of reality when left alone by human intervention. Example: A flower grown from the ground.
  ​
• Artificial: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through natural processes to resemble a naturally occuring object. Example: A felt flower is called an artificial flower.
  ​
• Supernatural: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through a method that goes against natural processes.
  Example: Creating matter to make a biological flower.
  

I think this flows much more with what I was thinking about before with natural being "how things occur when left alone."
Without human intervention, you can't have artificial flowers.
Without human intervention, you can't have supernatural flowers (regardless of whether or not matter is created or destroyed...).
So, I have been persuaded, I now think that the human-intervention (or "intelligent being...) aspect is paramount to the definition of supernatural.Why is a supernatural-flower not an artificial-flower? Because a supernatural flower is biological where an artificial flower would be crafted by other materials (for example: felt).I think these distinctions are clear, testable and significant. Or, at least, "supernatural" is as significant as "artificial," anyway.Maybe when a wizard creates/destroys matter it leaves behind a signature that can be tested for and identified.
Or, maybe not... it doesn't matter. Perhaps it's impossible to tell the difference between supernatural and natural if you didn't observe the actual creation process. Just as sometimes it's impossible to tell the difference between artificial and natural if you didn't observe the actual creation process.But if we did have a wizard, and he could create wine-rivers at will... (or turn rocks into wood... whatever...) then we could (if he was nice enough) observe the process of his breaking-natural-laws as much as we would like. Therefore, a distinction could (and should) be made.Therefore, the word "supernatural" would be just as useful as the word "artificial" when comparing against things that are "natural." With my new definitions... "supernatural" is used more like the word "artificial." In the sense that they are being contrasted to the word "natural" when it means something along the lines of "the state of reality when left alone by human intervention." Not "allowed to occur in the universe."I agree that if we confine ourselves to the definition of natural that reduces to "allowed to occur in the universe" then there's no use for the word "supernatural."
I would also point out, that if we are confining ourselves to this definition of the natural... then we are also making the word "artificial" useless as well.I am only contending that the word "supernatural" could be as useful as the world "artificial."Think of an amputee with no legs.
We can create plastic/metal legs for them... and we call them "artificial legs." It would be very strange indeed to call them "natural legs."
If we had a wizard, and that wizard could create matter to create biological legs again... then I would suggest that we should call them "supernatural legs." To anyone who understands what's happened to this person's legs... I think it would be very strange to call them "natural legs."There's a signficant difference there, and I don't see a problem with using the word supernatural to identify that difference.

But we are getting closer to regrowing limbs every decade and it is likely that limb regeneration will be possible.So why call such things supernatural? We know that many critters (some lizards and amphibians as examples) do regrow missing limbs.

I would not call such things supernatural. I would say such legs are artificial (if human intervention was required to re-grow the limb) or natural (if human intervention was not required to re-grow the limbs... as with the lizards).Here are the definitions again:

• Natural: The state of reality when left alone by human intervention. Example: A flower grown from the ground.
  ​
• Artificial: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through natural processes to resemble a naturally occuring object. Example: A felt flower is called an artificial flower.
  ​
• Supernatural: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through a method that goes against natural processes.
  Example: Creating matter to make a biological flower.
  

Obviously, when lizards regrow their limbs, there is no human intervention. We wouldn't call this supernatural or artificial. We would call this natural because they can do it all on their own.When a human leg can be regrown through a medical procedure... there would be human intervention, but no creation of matter in a breaking natural laws sense of things. Therefore that would be an artifical leg. (Their "natural leg" would have been the first one that was lost... I think we would all agree that humans do not regrow limbs "naturally"... at least not right now, anyway)So, to answer your question, I would not call such things supernatural as they do not meet the definition I'm using. They do not break any laws of nature regardless of any human intervention.However, if a wizard could create the leg again by breaking the laws of nature and actually creating the matter that composes the leg. Then I would say this would be supernatural.I would say this is obviously different from the ideas that you provided.
The ideas you provided do not break any natural laws (re-growing limbs).
The idea I provided does break natural laws (creation of matter) and it didn't happen "on it's own"... there was human intervention: the wizard.Using the word supernatural in this context is just as valid as using the word artificial in it's own context. They are the same sort of thing.

Upon further thought, I have decided to update my definitions again to include human intervention (or, at least "intelligent being" intervention) before the breaking of natural laws (creation of matter) is classified as supernatural.Here you go:

• Natural: The state of reality when left alone by human intervention. Example: A flower grown from the ground.
  ​
• Artificial: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through natural processes to resemble a naturally occuring object. Example: A felt flower is called an artificial flower.
  ​
• Supernatural: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through a method that goes against natural processes.
  Example: Creating matter to make a biological flower.
  

So, if I simply observed the creation of matter... I wouldn't know if it was supernatural or natural just by that observation.
If was something like a strange membrane in space... and "creating matter" is just what it does on it's own... then I would call that natural.
However, if it was something like a wizard or a God choosing to create the matter based upon their will then I would call it supernatural.The word "artificial" works in exactly the same way:
Lets say I came across an ant hill in the middle of the street.
It is most likely a natural ant hill because we know ants make ant hills all on their own.
But, if a person actually placed the grains of sand/dirt there and replicated an ant hill themselves... we would then call this an "artificial ant hill" because of the human intervention.

This would be using the definition of the term "natural" that reduces to "something that occurs in our universe."
I agree that if we use this definition, then the term "supernatural" is useless.
Of course... if we use this definitinon, then the term "artificial" is also useless and we end up calling plastic/metal limbs "natural limbs" when, in fact, they actually are artificial.This is because words have more than one meaning and you need to understand the context.I'm providing the word "supernatural" as a contrast to the word "natural" in the same type of context as when the word "artificial" is contrasted with the word "natural."The definitions boil down to something like this:

• Natural: The state of reality when left alone by human intervention. Example: A flower grown from the ground.
  ​
• Artificial: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through natural processes to resemble a naturally occuring object. Example: A felt flower is called an artificial flower.
  ​
• Supernatural: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through a method that goes against natural processes.
  Example: Creating matter to make a biological flower.
  

Exactly. So lets use the definitions in the context that makes sense. Actually, "supernatural" does mean the thing we'd call a wine river, if we could also show that an intelligent agent was behind the event. Because this would be breaking a law of nature (not "something that occurs in the universe" but "something that would occur if left on it's own"). It would include the creation of matter. By using the definitions I've provided above.

But you do not know that creating matter is supernatural, only that we cannot do it today.And humans do sometimes naturally regrow missing pieces parts, for example the end of a lost finger or toe digit complete with new nail.So I see no reason to call regrown limbs either supernatural or artificial.For me, until we can differentiate between any particular observation being natural and the very same observation being supernaturally guided, using the term supernatural is simply sloppy thinking. We need a reverse Turing test, one where we can tell if the result is natural (someone turned the lights on or off) or a supernatural (a supernatural entity turned the lights on or off).

I think this is only true if you allow yourself to be soiled.If you simply think about context and how the word "artificial" is used... then the word "supernatural" being used in the same manner (according to the definitions I've provided) makes a lot of sense.Those who wish to remain soiled are free to do so. But I refuse to let them stop the natrual progression of science. If supernatural things as I describe them actually did start to happen.. the word would get used to describe them in the way I propose. And those who refuse to use the word "supernatural" would eventually die off and the "controversy" would go down in history as being equivalent to the flat-earth society I have a wonderful imagination. I would boldly pronounce that you only have a sliver of validity when discussing the U.S. of A.
The rest of the civilized world is quite happy with using our intelligence to keep ourselves from being soiled.
Anyone who wants to join me, is free to throw off the shackles of their oppressors! Expand your mind!
The only person holding you down in the dredges of stagnant progress is you!
I offer you a world free of sludge! Free of boredom! I offer you... the supernatural!!!!Vive le supernatural!!!!!

Because things that are predictable and objectively/empirically verified and have a working hypothesis are what we label as natural. There's nothing super about them. Do you? How do you know the priests are close to god? How would you know the powers were imbued to them? If you're just going to try to define your position into being right, then I'm not going to argue against a tautology.

Let's go through an example:Let's say we one day find some sort of natural "brane-thing" in space that somehow naturally creates matter all on it's own without any intervention from intelligent beings... What now?The natural law of "matter cannot be created or destroyed" would get scientifically altered to something like:"Matter can be created by the brane-things that actually do this in this manner... (blah, blah, blah... lots of sciencey stuff here)"But.. what if the wizard doesn't create matter in the same "lots of sciencey stuff here" way that the brane-thing does? Then, the wizard's creation of matter would still be supernatural.
However, if the wizards's creation of matter did actually make use of the brane-things in some technological way we just didn't originally understand... then I agree, and the wizard would no longer be called "supernatural."The point is, it can be tested and determined.It's the same thing with the word "artificial" as we see in this example:We all agree that cars are "artifical" and not "natural," right? They are certainly man-made.
But... what if we one day discovered some natural process where cars are grown?Does this make the cars that humans make "natural?" Of course not. Because they're not being done in the same way. One is being naturally grown, the other is man-made. The definition of "artificial" still applies even though some cars are now known to be of natural origin. I'm only advocating the word "supernatural" in the same sense of the word "artificial."Every objection you've come up with isn't a valid objection when the concept is applied to the word "artificial." Therefore... they are not objections when applied to the word "supernatural" either. And I agree with you.
I said I agreed with you.There is nothing about this that includes the breaking of natural laws. Why do you think it has anything to do with what I'm calling supernatural? It is clearly outside the scope of the definition of supernatural that I've presented. I completely agree.That's why we use these definitions, in this context:

• Natural: The state of reality when left alone by human intervention. Example: A flower grown from the ground.
  ​
• Artificial: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through natural processes to resemble a naturally occuring object. Example: A felt flower is called an artificial flower.
  ​
• Supernatural: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through a method that goes against natural processes.
  Example: Creating matter to make a biological flower.
  

To continue to suggest that supernatural/natural is anything related to a defintion that reduces to "occurs in the universe" is disingenuous. 'Cause that's not what we're talking about. I completely agree.
The definitions provided above work great for that.

This supernatural discussion reminds me of that old Ronald Regan quote: " Trust but verify."Two complete contradictions in one three word mantra.If one trust what need to verify.
If one verifies what need to trust.The supernatural is in some ways can be oxymoron.

Well, it looks like you're making progress. I think you need to add a category though: Synthetic: An object created by humans (or "an intelligent being") through natural processes to actually be (as opposed to just resemble) a naturally occurring object. Example: Man-made Vitamin C is still real Vitamin C but it didn't naturally occur.Okay, now let's say you see a ghost. Something people would typically call supernatural. Doesn't it fit within the natural definition of yours? No, what it does is make the "artificial" a subset of the natural. Its still useful.From Message 545: Don't you think calling it a synthetic leg works better? Here's the thing though: If wizards can break the laws of nature, then they aren't really laws to begin with because they are breakable.

No, the definitions above would NOT work for that.Artificial things are natural.Artificial is simply an extension and subset of natural.And again, I see no way to differentiate between an observation that is natural and one that is supernatural.

Sometimes you reach the end of the line and you can't make any more adjustments. That's when belief comes in.That's why I keep making a distinction between accepting what can be adjusted and believing what can not be adjusted.