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

Exactly. Natural doesn't mean just one thing.So how come natural vs. artificial is okay if the distinction is "man-made."
But natural vs. supernatural is not okay if the distinction is "creation/destruction of matter?" But I agree with this.
The same applies to artificial flowers... If something artificial (man-made) is created, then it actually exists (natural). In that sense, there isn't anything that is artificial.The answer, of course, is exactly what you said above: Natural doesn't mean just one thing.Natural vs. Artificial uses a slightly different definition of natural. It's not saying natural is "something possible." It's saying that natural is something that is not man-made.Natural vs. Supernatural uses a slightly different definition of natural. It's not saying natural is "a possible process." It's saying that natural is a process where creation/destruction of matter did not occur.What's the difference?They're just both different meanings of the word "natural."
Insisting that the definition of natural must mean "something that is possible" when discussing natural vs. supernatural while I'm directly giving you a specific alternative definition:

quote:

---

We say that something is natural if no matter is created or destroyed.
We would then say that something is supernatural if we can identify that some matter was created or destroyed.

---

...is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

I don't know how you can be as dense and dishonest as your posts indicate. But as you well know I have never claimed that the supernatural doesn't exist. Why do you continue to misrepresent what has been posted. Because we can test artificial and determine if it was man-made.And you have not shown how creation/destruction of matter is supernatural.The fact that I don't know how to create or destroy matter (and in your Lakes of Wine example it could also be transforming state as opposed to creation/destruction) does not make something supernatural.Show me a test that differentiates between natural and supernatural and I can be persuaded.

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'm fine with that.I think it's perfectly reasonable to view the creation/destruction of matter as supernatural.
I think most people would identify it as such.In the same way most people identify man-made things as artificial.
Artificial things certainly are still "natural" in the sense that they are a part of this universe.
Supernatural things (as I'm describing them) would certainly still be "natural" in the sense that they are a part of this universe (if matter was ever created or destroyed).Like you said.. a subset.I don't really care if you don't want to use the word as defined. Just as I don't really care if you don't want to use the word "artificial." It's up to you. We can test supernatural and determine if any matter was created or destroyed as well. Well said, I agree.
The fact that you know or don't know things has no effect on the definition of the word "supernatural."Just as your knowledge on making things with your hands has no effect on the definition of the word "artificial.""Artificial" things exist regardless of whether or not you know how to make them. Man-made things exist. Artificial things exist."Supernatural" things exist (in the hypothetical situation we're talking about) whether or not you know how to make them. Things happened that involved the creation/destruction of matter. Supernatural things exist. A good point.
In which case, I would consider it natural.
Of course, it may not have happened that way, and maybe the Lakes of Wine example included the creation or destruction of matter. In which case, we can test for it to see if it happened. If we can confirm it... then we can apply the definition.The same thing for artificial things. Sometimes we may not be able to determine if they were man-made or not. When this happens we usually guess one way or the other depending on surrounding evidence and see if that concept gets over-ruled with possible future information. Again:

quote:

---

We say that something is natural if no matter is created or destroyed.
We would then say that something is supernatural if we can identify that some matter was created or destroyed.

---

If you don't like this test that's one thing. But it's strange for you to continue to act as if it hasn't been shown to you before.

Perhaps. I think this is debateable, though: Fair enough."Unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature."Isn't one of the current laws of nature "matter cannot be created or destroyed?"
I think it's a rather large law of nature. Fundamental, even.Therefore, if we do have matter being created or destroyed... and it's fundamental part of our laws of nature that this doesn't happen... Then I would say that it is "unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature."Seems like it works rather well to me.
I don't think I can force you to agree with this, though. I understand that definitions are sort of subjective.Personally, I think most people would agree with me. If there's an empty table, and someone can create matter onto that table. And we can scientifically test this to show that, indeed, matter was created. I don't think anyone would have much of an issue with calling it "supernatural."I've been resisting adding something to the definition including "...by the will of an intelligent being." But perhaps that is necessary. I'm not convinced yet, though. I do not agree.
I think that, according to this definition, as long as something goes against a fundamental law of nature (like having matter be created or destroyed)... it would then be called "supernatural." I don't think it's even a little stretch. I like the first sentence.If someone creates a felt flower, we call it an "aritifical flower."
What if a wizard could create a biological flower by actually creating the matter to do so? I don't see a problem with calling that a "supernatural flower" in the same kind of sense. To me, it seems to flow pretty well and keep pretty much exactly with the definition you've provided.

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.

It would lead us the same way it has always led us when we deal with "magical acts". We will investigate them, figure out what's up, and then declare them "natural"; or investigate them, remain stumped, and declare them "cause unknown". Definitions matter: Sapir-Worf. Been done; repeatedly. Of all the magic ever seen, no scientific investigation has ever concluded any of it to be supernatural. It should be obvious. "Fire-streak" means the thing we call lightening. "Evolution" means the thing we call evolution. "Supernatural" does not mean the thing we'd call a wine river.If you want "supernatural" to mean 'wine river', that's fine. But it won't help your argument. How do you distinguish the natural and the supernatural?

Equivocating gets you nowhere.

What would you do upon observation of matter being created from nothing?Would you declare the event supernatural? Would you modify your law?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Yes sir and if you don't then take what you have learned and adjust some part of your argument then you are not being rational. Part of the logic train never gets out of the station.That is the fundamental difference that leads some to believe some pretty crazy shit.

There we are. The base difference of opinion. We can choose up sides but, language being what it is, both are correct in their own spheres.So let me throw in a third correct opinion.The word supernatural is so emotion laden that it has become soiled.Supernatural associates with gods, spirits, religion, the woo of super beings with super powers, unseen magical forces and with all those the baggage of irrationality, faith rather than reason, and preposterous beliefs.While I sympathize with Stile's attempt to rehabilitate the word to its classical meaning, IMHO this is a losing cause. The woo connotations are too deeply entrenched in the mind of most listeners. The word viscerally invokes other meanings and cannot be used to mean simply that which is unexplained by natural laws. It is broken.We have a history of attaching supernatural to occurrences of unknown cause. With this has come all the attendant embellishments of unseen magical forces then entities to wield those forces then the rituals then the personification into gods then more rituals then schisms then war. All because the cause was unknown.As with so many black boxes padlocked and labeled Supernatural Inside whenever we have found the key, some new physics, opened the box and looked inside all we have ever found is natural.In the case of matter or energy being created or destroyed, or the instantiation of the Great Wine Lakes, or the videos of priests healing the dead, raising lost limbs and regrowing the terminally ill the causes would be unknown. Another set of padlocked black boxes.Unless one means to say god done it or it's woo-woo magic the word supernatural is not a conducive placeholder for unknown.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Why could that tape not conceivably exist?Let's stop this merry-go-round. Are you saying that such a tape could never physically exist? If so - Why not?"It could not exist because I would never recognise it as GOD even if it did exist" isn't an argument. Like gravity as spacetime curvature?And on what basis do we adopt this natural explanation for observed gravitational effects? I'll tell you - Because the predictions of that theory have been verified. The hypothetico-deductive method.Now if a supernatural hypothesis can lead to equally successful verifiable falsifiable predictions then we would have objective evidence of the supernatural. The hypothetico-deductive method can be applied in either case. Natural or supernatural makes no difference.You keep saying "How do you test supernatural?" But I ask you how you test natural and you start talking about testing natural explanations rather than testing whether something is natural.So I will keep telling you that we test supernatural explanations the same way we test natural explanations. We form a hypothesis and test the predictions of that hypothesis.

Right. So what verifiably and objectively "works" is the key. Abso-fucking-lutely. That's my point here.Now if a supernatural hypothesis "works" - If it leads to a raft of objective empirically verified predictions - Why doesn't that qualify for your supernatural folder? OK. Good. Now consider the scenario in question again: We have a supernatural hypothesis verified by prediction. It "works". We can't prove it isn't natural. But the supernatural explanation in question is now objectively evidenced by verified prediction.Right?

If you want to further list the 'by definition' attributes that this 'beyond definition' entity has then be my guest.As for your door - I'm Ignostic about it.

How would we distinguish a supernatural hypothesis from a natural one?