• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Natural vs. Supernatural: Real Distinction or Made-Up Crap?

Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
George-ananda said:
No, I wouldn't call electricity supernatural. Supernatural (which I said has no perfect definition) implies things beyond the physical realm.
Click to expand...
But we do not what the limits and qualities of the physical realm are - so how can we know anything is 'beyond' it?.
There are aspects of the physical world we do not understand, but why assume they are therefore supernatural?
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
Jared Jammer said:
We often see the terms natural and supernatural pitted against each other. I have a couple of questions, if you wonderful people don't mind giving me your thoughts.

Question 1. What exactly do these terms mean?

Question 2. In what ways do they bring enlightenment to the discussions?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Of course there are distinction.

Natural relate to nature, which doesn't defy the law of nature. Natural can be explained without resorting to explanation of god(s) or magic.

Supernatural is that of make-believe or that of simply ignorant superstition.

Anything that involved god, spirit or magic would fall under supernatural, things that totally defy nature or the law of physics. Also supernatural is the so-called miracles.

There are nature in which we can't explain or cannot yet explain, but that doesn't make it automatically "supernatural".

It is quite possible to explain what someone or something to be "supernatural".

So in reality, something that can or cannot be explained, don't mean much in regarding to natural/supernatural.

The distinction between natural and supernatural, would better to distinguish what is or isn't real -
  1. Natural being "real".
  2. Supernatural being "not real".
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
George-ananda said:
No, I wouldn't call electricity supernatural. Supernatural (which I said has no perfect definition) implies things beyond the physical realm.
Click to expand...
What's the "physical realm"? Are quantum effects "beyond the physical realm"?

Say you experienced some new phenomenon; what would you do to decide that it's physical or non-physical?
 
Sapiens

Sapiens

Polymathematician
If I actually experience it, as opposed to hallucination or delusion (and there's the rub) then it's in the physical realm
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
gnostic said:
Of course there are distinction.

Natural relate to nature, which doesn't defy the law of nature. Natural can be explained without resorting to explanation of god(s) or magic.

Supernatural is that of make-believe or that of simply ignorant superstition.

Anything that involved god, spirit or magic would fall under supernatural, things that totally defy nature or the law of physics. Also supernatural is the so-called miracles.

There are nature in which we can't explain or cannot yet explain, but that doesn't make it automatically "supernatural".

It is quite possible to explain what someone or something to be "supernatural".

So in reality, something that can or cannot be explained, don't mean much in regarding to natural/supernatural.

The distinction between natural and supernatural, would better to distinguish what is or isn't real -
  1. Natural being "real".
  2. Supernatural being "not real".
Click to expand...

Subjective
Objective

It is very obvious that the concept of subjectivity is never going to work with only objective things existing.
 
jonathan180iq

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Bunyip said:
I think that from a non-religious perspective there are two categories;
1. Things we understand.
2. Things we do not understand.

The ancients tended to look at things they didn't understand and attribute them to the gods - fertility, death, birth, thunder, wind and so on. So I see 'supernatural' as a made up notion - the imagining that somehow there still exists a space for what is not only unknown - but for some inexplicable reason is not knowable. I tend to think that is would be impossible to know that anything is not knowable - and yet the modern notion of the supernatural seems to rely on the assumption that there are unknowables, and hence somehow the divine.

If you look at how many believers approach apologetics - it is all about saying "oh well Mr atheist YOU explain how the universe began?" As if not knowing something somehow creates a gap into which the supernatural can be inserted.
Click to expand...
Yup.
 
jonathan180iq

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Unification said:
It was placed in another Atom making that Atom a negative ion, which the Bible called Eve.
Click to expand...

Damn right! Women are nothing but negative ions!
giphy.gif
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Jared Jammer said:
The atheist argument, in short:
  • Anything which exists is natural.
  • Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
  • Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
  • God is supernatural.
  • Thus, God does not exist.
Would you say that's accurate?
Click to expand...
I would say it might be accurate for a few select atheists, but not accurate enough for atheists across the board to be anything but a strawman presentation.
 
Gambit

Gambit

Well-Known Member
Aquinas is the one who coined the the term "supernatural." He did this to make a demarcation between the domains or religion and science. Religion was to be concerned with the primary cause, science with secondary causes.
 
lovemuffin

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Gambit said:
Aquinas is the one who coined the the term "supernatural." He did this to make a demarcation between the domains or religion and science. Religion was to be concerned with the primary cause, science with secondary causes.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I wasn't aware that it was Aquinas who coined it. I'm aware of terms like "supranoetic" or "supra-essential" as descriptions of God in Pseudo-Dionysius and others, which, at least in reference to the neoplatonic influence of the authors is similar, although not equivalent.
 
lovemuffin

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Mestemia said:
Source please.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia and a couple online dictionaries I checked suggest a medieval latin origination of the specific term supernaturalis in scholasticism. The source listed in wikipedia (as well as for the claim of a neoplatonic influence) is here: Supernatural as a Western Category - Saler - 2009 - Ethos - Wiley Online Library (p.17 of the PDF talks about Aquinas)

It seems to suggest to me that in some form the idea predates Aquinas but that he was important in formalizing something like the modern usage.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
well named said:
Wikipedia and a couple online dictionaries I checked suggest a medieval latin origination of the specific term supernaturalis in scholasticism. The source listed in wikipedia (as well as for the claim of a neoplatonic influence) is here: Supernatural as a Western Category - Saler - 2009 - Ethos - Wiley Online Library (p.17 of the PDF talks about Aquinas)

It seems to suggest to me that in some form the idea predates Aquinas but that he was important in formalizing something like the modern usage.
Click to expand...
I am asking specifically for the source of the claim that it was Aquinas who coined the word "supernatural".

The linked article does not even hint to towards said claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top