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

[outhouse]

Religion was to be concerned with the primary cause

But that is not reality is it ?

What is this primary cause you speak of?

 

[Gambit]

You have not provided a source that reveals who coined the word "supernatural".
Thus the reason I asked for a source.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the medieval Latin antecedent of “supernatural,” supernātūrālis, comes from the work of Thomas Aquinas.

(source: "The Natural vs. the Supernatural" by Miles Rind)

 

[Gambit]

What is this primary cause you speak of?

The primary cause is God.

 

[shawn001]

"Supernatural" is a paradox in and of itself. If something that we don't yet understand, ghosts, for example, are proven to exist, then we will study them, understand them, and discover the laws by which they operate. At this point, they simply become part of nature, which is why everything that we call "supernatural" either does not exist or is natural and not yet understood."

 

[shawn001]

The primary cause is God.

What God would that be? Any God?

 

[shawn001]

So you believe in Zeuss?

 

[psychoslice]

Natural is what we perceive all around us, its what makes our life as a human being possible....... the so called supernatural is where the natural as we know it all came from. I call this Consciousness, or the Source.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The primary cause is God.

No, it's the big bang. God blew himself up by accident.

 

[psychoslice]

No, it's the big bang. God blew himself up by accident.

He He, I love it lol.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

For the sake argument, let's say God exists.

Would God then be labeled as natural? Why or why not?

Any thing or process than can be shown to exist moves to the "Natural" side.
God is no exception.
On a personal level, or even on a collective level, we may be satisfied that God exists. However the problem arises when we attempt to prove it to some one of the opposite opinion. Such "facts" that we might consider to be proof, tend to be themselves unprovable.
This inability to prove something does not mean it is not true, It simply means it is not yet proven one way or the other.

This has been the case for all scientific and natural world "Facts" before their discovery and proof.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Any thing or process than can be shown to exist moves to the "Natural" side.
God is no exception.
On a personal level, or even on a collective level, we may be satisfied that God exists. However the problem arises when we attempt to prove it to some one of the opposite opinion. Such "facts" that we might consider to be proof, tend to be themselves unprovable.
This inability to prove something does not mean it is not true, It simply means it is not yet proven one way or the other.

This has been the case for all scientific and natural world "Facts" before their discovery and proof.

Again, the existence of God is a subjective issue, hence the emphasis on faith in religion. Those who do not understand that would also likely say that what is good and evil is a matter of scientific fact.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Again, the existence of God is a subjective issue, hence the emphasis on faith in religion. Those who do not understand that would also likely say that what is good and evil is a matter of scientific fact.

The sailors of old times feared they would sail off the edge of the world.
Today it is easily demonstrated that the world is a sphere.
However there are still "Flat Earthers"
"Young Earthers" clearly fall into that same category, as do many believers of quite obvious fallacies.

Religion in general, and in one form of another, is believed, by at least half the world's population.
Despite immense concentrated study over the entire "Historical" period, no definitive conclusion has been reached as to its truth in a demonstrable form.
Unfortunately, no one has yet come up with a way to prove or disprove any aspect of it. This includes the existence of God.

That being the case, No "side" can take the superior position.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The sailors of old times feared they would sail off the edge of the world.
Today it is easily demonstrated that the world is a sphere.
However there are still "Flat Earthers"
"Young Earthers" clearly fall into that same category, as do many believers of quite obvious fallacies.

Religion in general, and in one form of another, is believed, by at least half the world's population.
Despite immense concentrated study over the entire "Historical" period, no definitive conclusion has been reached as to its truth in a demonstrable form.
Unfortunately, no one has yet come up with a way to prove or disprove any aspect of it. This includes the existence of God.

That being the case, No "side" can take the superior position.

That is again confusing an objective issue, with a subjective issue. We know that what is good and evil is a subjective issue, the existence of God belongs to the same category of subjective issues.

The superior position is that freedom of opinion and religion is in constitutions of democracies, recognizing that the question can only be answered by choosing the answer. The conclusion cannot be reached by evidence forcing to a conclusion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That is again confusing an objective issue, with a subjective issue. We know that what is good and evil is a subjective issue, the existence of God belongs to the same category of subjective issues.

The superior position is that freedom of opinion and religion is in constitutions of democracies, recognizing that the question can only be answered by choosing the answer. The conclusion cannot be reached by evidence forcing to a conclusion.

That we have no answer YET does not mean that we will never have an answer. In the meantime both positions are equally valid.
The concept of "A God" may never be something we can prove, especially if as most Christian churches conclude that God exists outside (not subject to) time.

Good and evil are an entirely different matter, However it is not certain that God categorises Good and Evil in the same way as we do, especially when it come to acts of omission. God clearly sees no reason to act on our personal or collective needs, even in dire circumstances. Whilst our sins of omission are very clearly nominated as sins for mankind.
It is certainly true, that the concept of what is good or evil change both with society and time.

 

[outhouse]

The primary cause is God.

Cause of what?

Any answer would be unsubstantiated rhetoric.

 

[asier9]

In order to explain the contingent world in a logically consistent manner then an appeal need necessarily be made to another, inferred, order of reality. The contingent world, predicated as it is upon cause and effect, is the natural world and this logically necessary explanation for it is the supernatural.

 

[asier9]

For the sake argument, let's say God exists.

Would God then be labeled as natural? Why or why not?

No by definition God is the category of reality to which we are appealing to in order to explain the contingency of the natural world in the first place. If God were natural then such an appeal really would be a case of special pleading. God is a loaded term but here it is simply the necessary characteristics this other reality must have in order to serve as the logically consistent explanation for the world we do experience through our senses. As it turns out however these characteristics are the very same ones attributed to the God revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition. When you put this logical necessity together with the historicity of that revealed God then you do get I think a very strong case that such a God might indeed really exist. In my opinion this is many orders of magnitude more probably than the any other possibility for the world we experience.

However this is just Thomism 101.

A great book that addresses this question is Edward Freser's Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction.

Anther book which treats the subject well is Etienne Gilson's Being and Some Philosophers.

 

[Bunyip]

In order to explain the contingent world in a logically consistent manner then an appeal need necessarily be made to another, inferred, order of reality. The contingent world, predicated as it is upon cause and effect, is the natural world and this logically necessary explanation for it is the supernatural.

No, there need be only one reality, that doesn't work. More importantly 'supernatural' is not an explanation.

 

[Bunyip]

No by definition God is the category of reality to which we are appealing to in order to explain the contingency of the natural world in the first place. If God were natural then such an appeal really would be a case of special pleading. God is a loaded term but here it is simply the necessary characteristics this other reality must have in order to serve as the logically consistent explanation for the world we do experience through our senses. As it turns out however these characteristics are the very same ones attributed to the God revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition. When you put this logical necessity together with the historicity of that revealed God then you do get I think a very strong case that such a God might indeed really exist. In my opinion this is many orders of magnitude more probably than the any other possibility for the world we experience.

However this is just Thomism 101.

A great book that addresses this question is Edward Freser's Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction.

Anther book which treats the subject well is Etienne Gilson's Being and Some Philosophers.

Assuming a God to make reality logical doesn't wor.k

 

[McBell]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the medieval Latin antecedent of “supernatural,” supernātūrālis, comes from the work of Thomas Aquinas.

(source: "The Natural vs. the Supernatural" by Miles Rind)

Thank You