What is the meaning of this term "supernatural"?

I don't understand what people mean when they refer to certain things as being "supernatural". There must be some underlying physical mechanism responsibility for everything that is perceivable. If our consciousness somehow survives the death of our bodies, this must achieved through some real means, even if it is far beyond our current understanding.

But "supernatural" isn't meant to imply a lack of understanding, just the opposite. Is it just another shortcut... a mechanism for some to pretend as though they know the answer when that answer is actually a confession, by its very nature, that they don't know the answer?

Let's consider the Creator of the Universe. It has been said that He is supernatural. Someone even suggested that His status as "supernatural" precludes Him from being considered "extra-terrestrial." I don't see how the two terms are mutually exclusive, so maybe someone can help me with that.

But this Creator, according to many, has always existed and everything else that exists was created by Him. Wouldn't that description make Him the ONLY natural thing in the Universe? Everything that He created would be "God-made" or supernatural in that it is outside the true nature of existence, which is the only natural thing, God Himself.

I hope this amounts to more than just a semantics argument. Let's explore this desire to both make God the only true natural thing in existence, and also somehow outside of nature as we know it. Can't we just all be a part of this nature which includes our material world, God, souls, and everything else, should they exist?

Does it make sense to say "In the beginning, there was only Supernatural..."? Don't you need a natural before something can come along to be declared SUPERnatural?

 

Good question. I think it's simply an outdated notion from the days when people took concepts such as "spirit" seriously and theism of one kind or another was still predominant among the thinking classes, so to speak - the philosophers, astrologers and early scientists/theorists, etc.

In such times, the idea of "the supernatural" would have been commonly accepted and natural to the people, because there was just so much about the world that was beyond the scope of human knowledge and research.

 

How can it lead to anything but a semantics argument when your very subject matter is dependent upon semantics to give answer to the question. The question itself is a matter of semantics: "What is the meaning of this term "supernatural"?"

 

Because I intend to demonstrate that these "words" have no counterparts in reality and are just words. It must begin as semantics and develop into something more.

Semantics is so important to you because all the things you hold dear (God, souls, Heaven, etc.) are words and words alone, existing only in your mind and on the tip of your tongue.

Supernatural is a good example because the very notion is self-contradictory... more obviously so than that of a Creator God.

 

I think supernatural is just to describe phenomenon where we can't see a cause or connect to the natural world. Just about everything was supernatural to an ancient civilization. But that window keeps shrinking and today there are very few things we would describe as supernatural, and most people would argue that those things are all imaginary inventions of the mind.

 

I clearly understood what you said, and I still contend that because of the nature of the question, the discussion can amount to nothing more than a semantics argument. The standard definitions of 'supernatural' should suffice in answering "What is the meaning of "supernatural"?". However, if you are desiring to incorporate things outside the standardized definitions, then you are arguing things subjective and are likely to receive as many differing possibilities of answers as there are number of people on this planet. Which in turn means a semantic argument to prevail.

 

So give me the standard definition then.

 

When did I become your servant? There are many online dictionaries available. Choose your own selection and then post the entire listing that is provided at that source and also publish the source.

 

I think Mark Twain was on the right track when he wrote "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." I think Twain was referring to the frequent tension between our emotions (which WANT or NEED something to be so) and our intellects (which know better). So "supernatural" is a word which SEEMS to mean something, and which allows the emotions to take comfort in the "reality" of what it wants and needs, without being pestered by the intellect, which has been provided with the apparance of an "explanation" - that it's supernatural. It's the way the believing part of your mind can get the knowing part of your mind to back off and mind its own business.

 

I noticed that you used the expression "I think" twice. That would indicate that what you have stated is just your opinion and does not have the support of any objective evidence other than the opinion of another writer.

 

I noticed that you used the expression "I think" twice. That would indicate that what you have stated is just your opinion and does not have the support of any objective evidence other than the opinion of another writer.... and a fictional writer at that.

 

Supernatural means without scientific explanation at the present time.

 

Well of course they have no counterpart. If they did, then supernatural would not be supernatural, but rather something that is natural or having the same characteristics of that which is natural. Look at the very definition of 'counterpart'.

Error on your part. Presumption based upon presumption. You claim that such things as God, soul, Heaven, etc. are words and words alone. Now that you have made an affirmative (positive) claim, it is time for you to prove your claim.

Once again, prove your claim.

 

I just think people would rather God and Heaven and souls be REAL... and not some "supernatural" thing. Why wouldn't all this stuff just be a part of nature? To me, saying that it's outside of nature is like literally saying that it's not real. Maybe I don't understand the concept. I think it's possible that God and Heaven and souls exist as some natural aspect of our existence. I don't see how it's possible at all for something real to be outside of nature.

 

I think supernatural simply means what you allude to as beyond our current understanding. It can also refer to God or god-like forces or entities too. It's a pretty broad and lose term.

 

What is 'real'? Where does the cognizance of 'real' become a conscious state? Did you ever taste a lemon without a lemon being present in the room where you tasted the lemon? Was the lemon real? The lemon had to be real in order for you to 'taste' the lemon. You say it is just a reaction created by memory. Where does the memory reside? Is the memory a lemon? Take nature and turn it inside out and you will then begin to see why the soul, Heaven, God are real and what we perceive in nature is the illusion.

Think about the most severe injury that you ever encountered. Think about the pain involved in that injury. Focus on that pain,,, can you feel that pain? Can you feel that pain like you can taste that lemon? Ask a woman if she remembers the pain associated with child birth? Naturally she will say yes, but when asked to describe the pain, she will be restricted to abstract terms in trying to formulate some method of comparison for the benefit of the listener. Can she feel the pain...? Can she re-live the pain in the present moment? NO!

 

OK, I accept your new definitions for the terms, "reality" and "illusion."

I believe that your realistic fantasies have no basis in illusion. Only illusions can be assumed to exist because they are all any of us living beings have ever experienced. Anything that is supposed to exist beyond the illusion, to me, does not exist. These supposed things would have to have some sort of illusory mechanism responsible for their existence and activity.

 

Really? Where did I establish 'new definitions' for 'reality' and "illusion"? I basically asked questions.

What 'realistic fantasies'?

Either you are being facetious, else you are finally catching on.

Then you are in a sad state of affairs.

Where do you obtain the mandate from?

 

Like I say, I am ignorant of the concept. To me, to disallow the mandate is to say, "Well, it might not be real." Maybe this is just semantics. The mandate is just my acknowledgement that these things may exist. I find the distinction between supernatural and natural to be arbitrary. For "nature" to maintain its meaning, for me, it must be all-encompassing.

 

Well, the first time around, I didn't want to believe it and passed it off as an error in writing. Now with the second posting of the same concept, I am concluding that your first time was no mistake or error. Therefore, because you first claimed that you were 'ignorant of the concept' and now reiterate that you are 'ignorant of the concept' it becomes evident that you have no worthwhile or constructive input into a discussion on 'supernatural'. Thank you for that admission.

 

It should be clear to you now why I wanted to start the discussion. It is an effort to expand my horizons and learn about something currently unfamiliar to me. Your rhetoric seems to be based on an assumption that everyone else is claiming perfect knowledge about every topic. I usually don't have to insist on my ignorance. It is generally assumed. You're the only person I've come across who doesn't recognize the possibility of a discussion unless both participants are claiming ultimate knowledge.

Wouldn't be a very fun topic if I already knew a lot about it.

 

What makes it more fun is your seeming lack of comprehension of the term 'ignorance'. The definition of term implicitly states that it is a matter of being "uneducated", "unaware", and or "uninformed". So, which of the definitions are you claiming when you say that you are 'ignorant'

ig·no·rance (gnr-ns)
n.
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Nowhere have I suggested that someone has to have 'ultimate knowledge' or 'perfect knowledge'; that is your little input in the form of a misrepresentation of material fact. You may have given such an interpretation to my writing, however, your interpretation is irrelevant without clarification from me regarding said statements that you have misinterpreted.

At the two highlighted clauses above, it is seen that you are absolutely working within the framework of 'presumptions'. Presumptions are not facts.... deal with the facts.

 

I am claiming all three: uneducated, unaware, and uninformed. I started this topic with the hopes of changing that.

You are free to reply to the topic at your convenience. I am also enjoying watching you debate yourself on unrelated topics. I can have fun with pretty much anything.

 

Then have fun with the fact that you obviously have no comprehension of the English language and that you willingly reject the standard definitions of the term 'supernatural'. Ignorance at its finest, as you have already admitted.

 

Please keep this in mind the next time you consider posting to me. Remember MAYTAG - no reason at all for you to post to that guy anymore.