Science can mislead just as religion can; both can lead to falsehoods and thus both can mislead.

[Magic Man]

What I was saying is that the word "nature" has more than one meaning. I feel that me and you were disagreeing because we were NOT referencing the same meaning. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you didn't understand.

This is what I meant by the meaning I mentioned that nature as being a governing force:

Nature: 2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
nature definition | Dictionary.com


This is what I meant when I talked about the charasteristics of the way things exist:

Nature: 8.The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing.
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
nature definition | Dictionary.com

I'm assuming you were talking about nature in the sense of definition numbers 8 and 9, and not definition number 2.

No, number 2 is perfectly fine with me. Everything abides by those laws. We may not understand all of the laws, but that doesn't mean they're beyond nature.

This is not a good conclusion. I'd rather say, from what scientists have tested from people, or have been able to test, there's no proven supernatural case. I think this is better because how do you know there isn't any supernatural evidence, yet? Or if science is even equipped to prove the supernatural even if something authentically supernatural even happened?

Because, nothing we sense can be supernatural, by definition. If we sense it, it's in nature, and is therefore natural.

Again, another assumption. Or you're confusing the different definitions of "natural". One definition speaks for how we exists which can be supernaturally or natural, the other is a specific concept on how we exist which is assumptious if someone adopts supernaturalism or naturalism as an absolute concept..

No. We exist in nature. Anything we sense is natural. If we sense it, it has to be in nature, or else we couldn't sense it. We might not yet be able to explain some things that we sense, but that doesn't make them unnatural or supernatural.

BTW, this is not to say that God can't exist. It only says that God would be natural, not supernatural.

 

[Realist]

No, number 2 is perfectly fine with me. Everything abides by those laws. We may not understand all of the laws, but that doesn't mean they're beyond nature.
Because, nothing we sense can be supernatural, by definition. If we sense it, it's in nature, and is therefore natural.

We can sense some supernatural things. To say we can't is probably assuming that the supernatural is only immaterial, it's not. Jesus did some supernatural things that the human eye could see for instance. Take walking on water, or healing a sickness by just a command, or turning 2 loaves of bread and fish into enough to feed 5,000 people.

No. We exist in nature. Anything we sense is natural. If we sense it, it has to be in nature, or else we couldn't sense it. We might not yet be able to explain some things that we sense, but that doesn't make them unnatural or supernatural. BTW, this is not to say that God can't exist. It only says that God would be natural, not supernatural.

My previous response refutes this. Sensory perception is not a valid criteria to distinguish between supernatural and natural.

We exist, but that is not to say how we exist. Definitions #s 8 and 9 just imply that there are certain characteristics as to how we exist, but it doesn't go as far as saying exactly what those characteristics are or if those characteristics apply for the Universe as well. Only naturalism, which is an extreme form of definition #2, implies that.

 

[gnostic]

Of course, scientists can mislead, that's why you need more than just one scientist or more to test and verify the findings of the first scientist.

 

[Magic Man]

We can sense some supernatural things. To say we can't is probably assuming that the supernatural is only immaterial, it's not.

No, see the point is that if we can sense them, then they have to be part of nature. That means they must be natural.

Jesus did some supernatural things that the human eye could see for instance. Take walking on water, or healing a sickness by just a command, or turning 2 loaves of bread and fish into enough to feed 5,000 people.

Supposedly. There are many things like that in the Bible that have been explained in purely natural terms, as I mentioned before.

Also, even if he used some kind of magical powers to do such things, that doesn't mean they're supernatural. As I said, God could still exist, but he would have to be natural, and therefore anything Jesus did using those powers would also be natural.

My previous response refutes this. Sensory perception is not a valid criteria to distinguish between supernatural and natural.

Yes, it is. If we can sense it, it's part of nature. This is what I'm saying. You can narrow down the definition of "nature", if you want, to not include those things, but that's why it's only a matter of definition, like I said early on. It's not that people who say that everything is natural are ruling out supernatural phenomena like ghosts or miracles or even God, just that they have a different definition of "natural" than you.

 

[Seven]

You would not consider

faith is ignorance. Faith is merely ignorance claiming to be knowledge.​

an instance of denigrating all faith?

I'll happily take that position At the very least I would say that faith isn't a virtue.
As for the OP, Science and religion can be misleading. The difference is that science is self criticizing and self correcting, while religious faith isn't.

 

[Imagist]

Do you truly think that pathetic attempts to ridicule faith is productive? In fact, it is you who are childishly taking potshots.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines faith first and foremost as:

I. Belief, trust, confidence.

1. a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine).

1. b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.​

To denigrate faith - all faith - as ignorance is petty bigotry, nothing more.

These definitions aren't the only ones in common usage. When I speak of "faith", I mean "belief in something without the prerequisite of evidence". I AM denigrating faith, and ALL faith, of that definition. Under what condition is it good to believe something without any evidence whatsoever?

 

[Imagist]

I don't believe the mechanism can be scientifically understood; perhaps at best it can only be described. According to the Bible, the mechanism is supernatural. God reveals Himself via divine revelation to those who have faith in Him.

Yet there is no evidence that such a supernatural mechanism exists.

Some theologians and philosophers of religion have mentioned that God can be known rationally as well, and that knowing about Him based on faith is only one way, not the only way.

So what rational evidence do you have that god exists?

Such absolute things don't exist? God rings a bell!

What evidence do you have that god exists?

 

[Realist]

No, see the point is that if we can sense them, then they have to be part of nature. That means they must be natural.

I don't see how your point rebuts my previous points regarding supernatural things happening in nature. I see you making a claim but I don't see any real reason to back it up especially when it doesn't account for the examples I gave you regarding the things Jesus did and how those could be seen by the human eye.
The best way that I know of to distinguish between the natural and supernatural, at least in principle, centers around the laws of nature, not sensory perception. Otherwise, please tell me why aren't some of the things that Jesus did supernatural? Is it part of the laws of nature to speak a sickness out of someone so they'd be healed? Many scientists and atheists would laugh at such a thought, so I'd find it interesting if you're saying these things are really natural as you even try to class God as.

Supposedly. There are many things like that in the Bible that have been explained in purely natural terms, as I mentioned before.

I agree that "some" supernatural events in the Bible can also be done through natural means but that is not to say that it happened through natural means. For example, some scientists have probably tried to explain the parting of the Red Sea as being caused by crosswinds. Now perhaps that can cause the Red SEa to part, but who's to say that there isn't another way the Red Sea could part like if God got involved as the Bible mentions? Bottom line is, I believe there are two ways the parting of the Red Sea could've happen, a natural way and a supernatural way (which is when God got directly involved in that situation). So all scientists did was just describe one way this event could happen but that is not to say it happened that way since there's also another way it could happen.

Also, even if he used some kind of magical powers to do such things, that doesn't mean they're supernatural. As I said, God could still exist, but he would have to be natural, and therefore anything Jesus did using those powers would also be natural.

Do you have something against using the word supernatural? lol. I mean you used the word "magical" but I don't know if this is a cover up word for supernatural. This goes back to your first response that I quoted in this post, which you did not give any valid reasons for. You said if we can sense it, then it has to be nature but then you failed to explain what seeing someone healing by speaking away a sickness would be. Clearly, we could observe something like that. We could also observe someone turning 5 loaves of bread into enough to feed 5,000.

Yes, it is. If we can sense it, it's part of nature. This is what I'm saying. You can narrow down the definition of "nature", if you want, to not include those things, but that's why it's only a matter of definition, like I said early on. It's not that people who say that everything is natural are ruling out supernatural phenomena like ghosts or miracles or even God, just that they have a different definition of "natural" than you.

I already explained and even showed you that even dictionaries rightly define natural in that context in varying degrees. You may find one meaning that says nature only applies to the material world but it doesn't go as far as saying that's all that exist. You'll find other meanings that mention or imply that nature is the entirety of existence, which is really a philosophical view called, Naturalism. I mean do you think that just because a word has a definition, that that means it exists? I can define immaterial, does that mean that anything immaterial actually exist beyond just being a concept? No! In the same way, naturalism just because it's defined, does not necessarily mean that's how reality really is.

 

[Realist]

So what rational evidence do you have that god exists?

I know of none but it wouldn't be fair to consult me on this because I've not really read a lot into the arguments for God. I'm not that far along my studies yet. From the little I can remember, the teleological and moral arguments for God made the most sense to me, and I'll try to articulate them here when I explore them more.

What evidence do you have that god exists?

The only evidence I have is my experiences of God. To put this in context though, this was in response to your claim that nothing absolute exists. Where is your proof for that? *you can read below here to look at the context of the statement*

Absolutes are 100% universally valid, no room for small chances of mistakes here.

Such things don't exist, so why not appropriate the idea for use in things that are 99.99999999% sure?

 

[Falvlun]

I don't see how your point rebuts my previous points regarding supernatural things happening in nature. I see you making a claim but I don't see any real reason to back it up especially when it doesn't account for the examples I gave you regarding the things Jesus did and how those could be seen by the human eye.

It might be best if you came up with some "supernatural" occurence that people can generally agree actually happened. The problem with your example is that there really is no proof that Jesus turned 5 loaves and 2 fishes into a meal that fed 5,000 people.

Regardless, the point the mball is making is that if it was shown that Jesus did in fact feed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish, then it would still be classified as natural since it happened within nature-- and if it happened in nature, then there are obviously some natural laws which we have not yet discovered that allow for such apparently miraculous events to occur.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't see how your point rebuts my previous points regarding supernatural things happening in nature. I see you making a claim but I don't see any real reason to back it up especially when it doesn't account for the examples I gave you regarding the things Jesus did and how those could be seen by the human eye.
The best way that I know of to distinguish between the natural and supernatural, at least in principle, centers around the laws of nature, not sensory perception. Otherwise, please tell me why aren't some of the things that Jesus did supernatural? Is it part of the laws of nature to speak a sickness out of someone so they'd be healed? Many scientists and atheists would laugh at such a thought, so I'd find it interesting if you're saying these things are really natural as you even try to class God as.

You're missing my point. If we can see it (or sense it it with one of our other senses) it's a part of nature. That's the point. Jesus's walking on water was seen by people (presumably), and so it was natural because it was in nature. If it did actually happen, then there was a natural explanation, even if he used some kind of magic.

I agree that "some" supernatural events in the Bible can also be done through natural means but that is not to say that it happened through natural means. For example, some scientists have probably tried to explain the parting of the Red Sea as being caused by crosswinds. Now perhaps that can cause the Red SEa to part, but who's to say that there isn't another way the Red Sea could part like if God got involved as the Bible mentions? Bottom line is, I believe there are two ways the parting of the Red Sea could've happen, a natural way and a supernatural way (which is when God got directly involved in that situation). So all scientists did was just describe one way this event could happen but that is not to say it happened that way since there's also another way it could happen.

The point is even if God did it, it would still be natural. It would still be a part of nature acting on a part of nature in accordance with natural laws. However, I do think it's funny that, even though there's a perfectly good explanation for the parting of the Red Sea (it dries up in a certain place every day, I think, or very often, at least), you think it was probably done some other way that one time.

Do you have something against using the word supernatural? lol.

You seem to have something against using the word "natural".

I mean you used the word "magical" but I don't know if this is a cover up word for supernatural.

Well, they are two very different words. Magical does not imply supernatural.

This goes back to your first response that I quoted in this post, which you did not give any valid reasons for. You said if we can sense it, then it has to be nature but then you failed to explain what seeing someone healing by speaking away a sickness would be. Clearly, we could observe something like that. We could also observe someone turning 5 loaves of bread into enough to feed 5,000.

Yes, and if we did, they would have natural causes. It's that simple.

I already explained and even showed you that even dictionaries rightly define natural in that context in varying degrees. You may find one meaning that says nature only applies to the material world but it doesn't go as far as saying that's all that exist. You'll find other meanings that mention or imply that nature is the entirety of existence, which is really a philosophical view called, Naturalism. I mean do you think that just because a word has a definition, that that means it exists? I can define immaterial, does that mean that anything immaterial actually exist beyond just being a concept? No! In the same way, naturalism just because it's defined, does not necessarily mean that's how reality really is.

OK, you're thinking way too hard about this. The only point is that those who say that everything is natural are not saying God is impossible. They are saying God is also natural. They say that everything is natural because, if we sense it, it's part of nature. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. Somebody walking on water is part of nature. As for creating 5,000 loaves out of 5, if God did it, he did it by some natural means. That's all there really is to it.

 

[Realist]

It might be best if you came up with some "supernatural" occurence that people can generally agree actually happened. The problem with your example is that there really is no proof that Jesus turned 5 loaves and 2 fishes into a meal that fed 5,000 people.

Regardless, the point the mball is making is that if it was shown that Jesus did in fact feed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish, then it would still be classified as natural since it happened within nature-- and if it happened in nature, then there are obviously some natural laws which we have not yet discovered that allow for such apparently miraculous events to occur.

I addressed this point earlier on as well. Who's to say that supernatural things can't happen in nature? That is that God couldn't simply come to Earth and start violating the laws of nature? God created nature, so it would be unreasonable to refer to Him as a being natural or from nature or bound by the laws of nature just because He visits Earth.
Besides, that your comment makes it seems as though you are uncertain on what some of the laws of nature are because otherwise you wouldn't be considering things like Jesus speaking away sicknesses as being natural, because that is FAAAAAAAAAARRRR from any scientific knowledge that science has. Would you agree that science at least has figured out how a woman gets pregnant, and that the way Jesus was conceived, (that is without sexual intercourse from His parents and without artificial insemination), is clearly not the natural way a woman would get pregnant? I surely hope science knows enough about the laws of nature to definitely judge between the two as far as which is natural and which is not. My examples don't even necessarily have to be real, I could just use examples or scenarios to describe what a supernatural event would be like so you'll know what it is, but that's not to say that one has happened. Just as we know who Santa Clause is, by defining and describing him, but that's not to say he actually exist.

 

[Magic Man]

I addressed this point earlier on as well. Who's to say that supernatural things can't happen in nature?

Well, they wouldn't be supernatural if they happened in nature.

That is that God couldn't simply come to Earth and start violating the laws of nature? God created nature, so it would be unreasonable to refer to Him as a being natural or from nature or bound by the laws of nature just because He visits Earth.

No, if God interacts with nature, he must be natural.

 

[Realist]

OK, you're thinking way too hard about this. The only point is that those who say that everything is natural are not saying God is impossible. They are saying God is also natural. They say that everything is natural because, if we sense it, it's part of nature. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. Somebody walking on water is part of nature. As for creating 5,000 loaves out of 5, if God did it, he did it by some natural means. That's all there really is to it.

Think of it this way, the natural is a realm of existence, and the supernatural is another realm of existence. You can add the distinction between physical and spiritual to further get a picture of what I mean here. Now to call God natural, is saying that He is from or of nature, and is under or bound to the laws of nature. How does that make sense, when He made nature so He clearly did not originate in nature?
Science says that there is a law of gravity. Lets say God changed into a human form, and He decided to fly, wouldn't you agree that even if you considered calling that natural then you're questioning the legitimacy of scientific knowledge even going as far as calling it false. The implications of this would discredit scientific knowledge since we could then start questioning other things that science says works such and such a way. That is if you're willing to start calling things natural when our scientific knowledge says it can't happen according to the laws of nature.

 

[Falvlun]

I addressed this point earlier on as well. Who's to say that supernatural things can't happen in nature?

Let's draw an analogy. A tiger would be an example of a real animal. A unicorn would be an example of an un-real animal, a mythical beast. Let's imagine that biologists have discovered a live unicorn living in the Andes and they provide uncontrovertable proof to that effect. Now, would the unicorn continue to be referred to as a "mythical beast", or would it now be classified with the tiger, under "real animal"?

That is that God couldn't simply come to Earth and start violating the laws of nature?

Because, if this were the case, then one of the laws of nature would be "God doesn't have to follow all the other laws of nature."

Besides, that your comment makes it seems as though you are uncertain on what some of the laws of nature are because otherwise you wouldn't be considering things like Jesus speaking away sicknesses as being natural, because that is FAAAAAAAAAARRRR from any scientific knowledge that science has.

No, because like most people of the scientific persuasion, I understand that science does not know everything that could ever possibly be known about the universe.

Would you agree that science at least has figured out how a woman gets pregnant, and that the way Jesus was conceived, (that is without sexual intercourse from His parents and without artificial insemination), is clearly not the natural way a woman would get pregnant? I surely hope science knows enough about the laws of nature to definitely judge between the two as far as which is natural and which is not.

Which is why I'm inclined to believe that Mary was not a virgin...

(Although, I have heard rumors of pregnancies starting from simple contact of sperm with vagina--- no intercourse needed.)

My examples don't even necessarily have to be real, I could just use examples or scenarios to describe what a supernatural event would be like so you'll know what it is, but that's not to say that one has happened.

Your examples were supposed to somehow prove that supernatural events can occur because they have occurred in the past. They fail because there is no proof that they actually did occur. Does that make sense?

What if I described to you a creature that looked like a big cat, was orange and black striped, and was powerful, fast, and strong. I told you that this was a Korflin from the planet Kor. I'm telling you this so that when you see one, you will know that you have seen an alien.
~
Now, doesn't this description sound suspiciously like a tiger? Should you believe you are seeing a Korflin whenever you see a tiger? Afterall, it does match my description. Or, is it more logical to assume you are seeing a tiger, and that my description, though accurate, does not actually represent a Korflin, but something much more commonplace?

 

[Realist]

Let's draw an analogy. A tiger would be an example of a real animal. A unicorn would be an example of an un-real animal, a mythical beast. Let's imagine that biologists have discovered a live unicorn living in the Andes and they provide uncontrovertable proof to that effect. Now, would the unicorn continue to be referred to as a "mythical beast", or would it now be classified with the tiger, under "real animal"?

This may not be a good analogy because it depends on the conditions being applied here. A myth just involves the condition of being unreal, whereas in the context of my conversation here on the supernatural I'm not speaking about real and unreal but rather what's under the laws of nature and what transcends the law of nature which is an extra or totally separate condition. I can say that God is a myth, and if a scientists discovered incontrovertible proof of Him, then He's no longer a myth. But also, if they discovered that He was not from the natural world and could transcend the laws of nature (which the Bible says as much I might add), then they'd not only be changing Him from myth to fact, but also proving His supernatural characteristics. ONly if God was proven to be "from" the natural world and bound to the laws of nature, then I'd call Him natural, but I've already laid out my conditions and have tried to show, just because He's in nature, it doesn't mean He's from nature which means He's not necessarily natural.

No, because like most people of the scientific persuasion, I understand that science does not know everything that could ever possibly be known about the universe.

Then how do we determine which findings of science are correctly classed as the laws of nature and which aren't? I'm willing to give science more credit than that eventhough I'm also one of those who argue against people projecting it as a cure all remedy for ignorance.

Which is why I'm inclined to believe that Mary was not a virgin...
(Although, I have heard rumors of pregnancies starting from simple contact of sperm with vagina--- no intercourse needed.)

Well as the Bible describes it, that is not what happened. If anything, Jesus was a product of spiritual implantation as the NT directly mentions. Not that this have to be true but as an example, it is a valid example of what a supernatural event would be.

Your examples were supposed to somehow prove that supernatural events can occur because they have occurred in the past. They fail because there is no proof that they actually did occur. Does that make sense?

I never asserted I was proving the supernatural exist, I was only defining it in order to explain what it is.

What if I described to you a creature that looked like a big cat, was orange and black striped, and was powerful, fast, and strong. I told you that this was a Korflin from the planet Kor. I'm telling you this so that when you see one, you will know that you have seen an alien.
Now, doesn't this description sound suspiciously like a tiger? Should you believe you are seeing a Korflin whenever you see a tiger? Afterall, it does match my description. Or, is it more logical to assume you are seeing a tiger, and that my description, though accurate, does not actually represent a Korflin, but something much more commonplace?

Read my first point. It answers this as well. Unless some thing else can be mistaken as being from "outside of nature", being omnipotent, omniscient, etc, etc. Just the first condition, being "from" outside of nature qualifies it as "unmistakably" supernatural by definition.

 

[Falvlun]

This may not be a good analogy because it depends on the conditions being applied here. A myth just involves the condition of being unreal, whereas in the context of my conversation here on the supernatural I'm not speaking about real and unreal but rather what's under the laws of nature and what transcends the law of nature which is an extra or totally separate condition.

An analogy isn't meant to use the exact same conditions-- ie, if we were debating about blue cows, and my analogy contained red fish, the difference in adjective and noun doesn't change the central point.

If the definition of natural is "anything that is found in the universe" then necessarily anything that is found in the universe is natural.

Then how do we determine which findings of science are correctly classed as the laws of nature and which aren't?

Um... the scientific method would be a start.

It seems to me that you are under the impression that the "laws of nature", as stated by science today, are the immutable truth. Science is continually evolving... nothing is sacred, everything is suspect. Wisest is he who knows he does not know.

Well as the Bible describes it, that is not what happened. If anything, Jesus was a product of spiritual implantation as the NT directly mentions. Not that this have to be true but as an example, it is a valid example of what a supernatural event would be.

No, it is not. There are other known "natural" ways that a virgin could become pregnant, and there is the possibility of natural ways that are not yet known. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that spiritual implantation, if that actually occured, is in fact supernatural, and not as natural as copulation-- just much, much more rare.

I never asserted I was proving the supernatural exist, I was only defining it in order to explain what it is.

And I am saying that your description is useless. You are simply making up a description, and slapping the label "supernatural" on it, with no explanation of why this must be so.

Consider the fact that ancient peoples believed that volcanoes, earthquakes, rain, drought, ect were all supernatural, originating from some supernatural wrath or benevolence. They could have described an earthquake to me, and said "See. That is what a supernatural event is. That is how you will know one when you see it."

We, of course, know that there are completely natural explanations for earthquakes. Who is to say that a thousand years from know there will not be a completely natural explanation of how 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread fed 5,000 people?

Read my first point. It answers this as well. Unless some thing else can be mistaken as being from "outside of nature", being omnipotent, omniscient, etc, etc. Just the first condition, being "from" outside of nature qualifies it as "unmistakenbly" supernatural by definition.

To be outside of nature, one must be outside of the universe. If God is outside of the universe, then yes, he would be considered supernatural (from our standpoint... not from the standpoint of whatever location he occupies).

However, I would argue, that as soon as he steps foot inside our universe, he becomes as natural as a hippie with flowers in her hair.

 

[Realist]

An analogy isn't meant to use the exact same conditions-- ie, if we were debating about blue cows, and my analogy contained red fish, the difference in adjective and noun doesn't change the central point.

I misexplained that point in the first sentence in part of my previous point. I meant the "type" or the other conditions that I mentioned, which otherwise still makes the rest of that previous response of mine valid.

If the definition of natural is "anything that is found in the universe" then necessarily anything that is found in the universe is natural.

Well that is "one" definition out of the others but what you just defined is the most extreme form called naturalism. I'd also add that meanings don't necessarily have to apply to things that actually exist, just as I can define immaterial but that doesn't mean immaterial things exist. Following this reasoning, I'd argue that naturalism is not necessarily an accurate picture of reality just because it's defined. I accept the more modest version of of what nature means, that is that nature is "a" and not the , governing force of the universe also containing laws. We know nature exist, but we don't know if that's all that exists in the Universe or reality which is why I accept that modest version.

Um... the scientific method would be a start.
It seems to me that you are under the impression that the "laws of nature", as stated by science today, are the immutable truth. Science is continually evolving... nothing is sacred, everything is suspect. Wisest is he who knows he does not know.

No, it is not. There are other known "natural" ways that a virgin could become pregnant, and there is the possibility of natural ways that are not yet known. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that spiritual implantation, if that actually occured, is in fact supernatural, and not as natural as copulation-- just much, much more rare.

Would you consider the Holy Spirit implanting someone with a child as another "natural" way? From scientific knowledge, the only natural way to get a woman pregnant is to inseminate her with the male reproductive cell, and the Holy Spirit did not use man's seed, so just how or why would you call what He did as natural?

I'd also say, if there's another natural way other than artificial insemination and intercourse, then it also shouldn't contradict the already known natural ways to get pregnant. Or a better example is the law of gravity. If God came to Earth and changed into a man and started flying, then you couldn't say that's just an unknown natural ability because then that contradicts the law of gravity. It wouldn't make sense to say one law of nature is that you can fly and the other is that you can't.
You can also use that flying scenario as another example of the supernatural.

And I am saying that your description is useless. You are simply making up a description, and slapping the label "supernatural" on it, with no explanation of why this must be so.

Well that's false because I clearly gave conditions that would satisfy what superntural is. One is not being from nature, another is not being limited by the laws of nature. Then I went on to give scenarios with using known laws of nature and simply came up with a scenario where it is violated.

Consider the fact that ancient peoples believed that volcanoes, earthquakes, rain, drought, ect were all supernatural, originating from some supernatural wrath or benevolence. They could have described an earthquake to me, and said "See. That is what a supernatural event is. That is how you will know one when you see it."

We, of course, know that there are completely natural explanations for earthquakes. Who is to say that a thousand years from know there will not be a completely natural explanation of how 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread fed 5,000 people?

Well we know with scientific "knowledge" that you can't turn 2 into 5,000 out of thin air or just using a command as Jesus did. That's why I'd say if this did happen or even as an example scenario that happens, then I wouldn't count on that being later on explained as natural. Whereas, it was with "ignorance" and "superstition" that people asserted volcanic eruptions, all earthquakes, etc were the wrath of God. So your example doesn't hold up here. And the ignorance of this assertion can be contradicted with scientific knowledge of course.

For theoretical purposes, lets also say, well maybe there is no scientific knowledge, to determine if 2 can turn to 5,000 out of thin air or with just using a command. With this in mind, I'd add another condition to distinguishing between the natural and supernatural, that it has to not be explainable by natural means which is what the definition implies as well. Now if we can't know something on this scale, your reasoning also opens the door to not knowing the extent of any law of nature, which means we'll never be ever to tell for sure what can happen as opposed to what can't really happen. Hopefully, if I told you a donkey and snakes could talk, as the Bible mentioned some doing at times, you'd not laugh but or think that is absurd or definitely not a law of nature. That would be what you'd be stuck with.

To be outside of nature, one must be outside of the universe. If God is outside of the universe, then yes, he would be considered supernatural (from our standpoint... not from the standpoint of whatever location he occupies).

However, I would argue, that as soon as he steps foot inside our universe, he becomes as natural as a hippie with flowers in her hair.

This is an interesting view, but I still respectfully disagree. The supernatural also involves being able to transcend the laws of nature, and not always just where you're at. In nature a supernatural whatever would be, not being originally from nature, being able to violate a law of nature and that that act not be explainable via natural means and/or not being an "unknown" law of nature. I know if nothing else, God fits this criteria for sure. Since He created nature or the Universe, so that definitely means He's not from it. Since He's omnipotent so that would mean He can violate the laws of nature contrary to what you mentioned, where He'd take on the limitations of the laws of nature while in nature. And He's not an "unknown" natural being or Higher Being, because again, He created the natural world.

 

[Realist]

To be outside of nature, one must be outside of the universe. If God is outside of the universe, then yes, he would be considered supernatural (from our standpoint... not from the standpoint of whatever location he occupies).

However, I would argue, that as soon as he steps foot inside our universe, he becomes as natural as a hippie with flowers in her hair.

If I go to France, that doesn't automatically make me French, no matter from what standpoint. To be technical here, God is omnipresent so He's "everywhere". He doesn't really have one set location unless you say He's in one place in a particular way while being another place in another way. For instance, He could be everywhere spiritually, but on occasion come to Earth in the physical form, while still being everywhere spiritually. This ability is definitely something more than just natural even by your reasoning, and I'd say even more than supernatural iF there were a word greater than to describe this.

 

[Magic Man]

This may not be a good analogy because it depends on the conditions being applied here.

No, that's actually a perfect analogy. We say things are supernatural because we don't understand them. Once we understand them, they're perfectly natural. If we saw someone walking on water, we might call it supernatural, but if that person explained how they did it, we would call it quite natural, no matter how they had accomplished it.

The same goes for the unicorn or a ghost. We call ghosts supernatural because we don't understand them. However, if they really are just spirits of dead people, then they're still natural.