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

I didn't see that before... Well, if matter was being created/destroyed, then we'd be living in a Universe where that was possible. And if it happens naturally in our Universe, then there's nothing super about it. That's because its impossible. If it was happening, then it wouldn't be impossible anymore.

Artificial means "man-made". Felt flower are man-made so yes, they're artificial. But they're not supernatural, so they're natural too. Natural doesn't mean just one thing. This point of difference is that the thing is impossible. If something impossible (supernatural) does happen, then actually it is possible (natural).In that sense, there isn't anything that is supernatural.

It is "okay", if that's how you want to define supernatural. I don't find that to be a very useful definition tho. There, I'm not seeing a difference.But that isn't really what supernatural means... Merriam-Webster defines supernatural as:

quote:

---

: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

​

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

​

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

---

With that definition, if something exists within the visible observable universe, or is able to be explained by science or the laws of nature, then it falls outside of the definition of supernatural.Unless we go with the watered-down 2a, but then it kinda loses the magic.

I wouldn't have a problem with that either. On the other hand, given said flower you wouldn't be able to tell that it was supernatural. I guess you'd have to see creation of it, but how could you tell if the matter was created or not? See though, its like a Catch-22: if we do have matter being created, then our laws of nature do allow for matter to be created. We were just wrong about it being impossible. So is Dark Matter supernatural at the moment? I don't think you'd call it that.So then why would you call the creation of matter supernatural?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

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.

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.

I think the accusation of shit science comes from acknowledging that science has never once concluded that something was supernatural, so if you do then you're not doing good science. Oh, well I do. The whole point of the supernatural, to me, is that it is not natural.

I suppose its possible.

I guess. But it seems a little disingenuous because I think you already know that no such test exists. I'd be more direct and just say: "You can't know that."

It seemed like a silly discussion to me in the first place. If the supernatural was study-able, then we'd be studying it right now.But I do find it surprising that atheists are "sticking up" for the supernatural. Prolly shoulda been a seperate topic, just sayin'. Here we are, so fuck it. I thought the OP was pretty dumb to begin with. People don't "believe in" gravity like they "believe in" God.We know gravity exist. People just think God exists.To put those two together is simply an equivocal conflation. or we could talk about something else Sure, well done, sir.

You can save yourself time by compressing your tautology:"Assuming we can scientifically explain the supernatural, then we can scientifically explain the supernatural."

I see you've met jar.

Are you even reading my posts?

quote:

---

In principle, the supernatural could be witnessed by a scientific approach, but scientific explanations are supposed to be natural.

---

quote:

---

Science can investigate anything that can be investigated, be it natural or not.

​

It limits itself to explanations that are natural, but that doesn't dictate what you can look at.

---

Yeah, apparently you're not. That doesn't resemble my beliefs at all.Subjective evidence can certainly be ignored, isn't really all that genuine, and doesn't give us a good indication of much of anything. Quote me saying that.

I dunno. I made a general reply that science can witness anything, but its explanations are limited to natural ones.And then you started getting into how science could witness the supernatural.

I see the method as one part of what is referred to as "science". As I said before, if it has objective empirical evidence and we can make predictions of it, then it is what we would label as natural. There's nothing super about it. So either they don't exist, or science can't know them. That's one of the reasons I'm not an atheist. I've had experiences that made me think that there's other stuff going on here that falls outside of what science knows.