Originally posted by Eladar
... It means that something can happen that we can't make happen, ever seen happen or reproduce.
It is easy enough to conceive of something that fits that above definition but most of us would disagree should be called 'supernatural'. For example, something happening in another universe other than our own but obeying the same natural laws (esp the physical laws ) of our universe; we may not ever be able to observe it if it is in another universe but we wouldn't generally call that 'supernatural'.
A better definition of 'supernatural' would be one that says it means something that observations, whether scientific observation or just 'ordinary' everyday observations, shows doesn't obey natural law i.e. it disobeys the pattern of behavior we always observe things to happen in our universe.
And, with that
definition of 'supernatural', it would be virtually by definition be irrational to believe that any such supernatural thing exists because it would mean there is not only no observable evidence for it (by its definition of supernatural) but the observation of natural laws imply it probably
never happens (by its definition of supernatural) .
For example, with that definition of 'supernatural', a solid object, such as a boulder, apparently floating through a sold brick wall without leaving a hole in it, would be 'supernatural' precisely because such an occurrence disobeys the natural laws we observe in our universe (we always have observed solid objects/things resist going through each other and don't 'magically float' etc; those are examples of 'natural law' ). And since it must disobey how we observe and thus rationally know how things behave for it to be 'supernatural' by the very definition of 'supernatural', just like any superstitious belief, it must be an irrational belief to believe a boulder can do that.
And, hypothetically, if we lived in a universe where we actually do
observe boulders float through solid things and we observe (excluding those of us who are drunk or on drugs or hallucinate) gods and ghosts, than all that would be part and parcel of 'natural law' by definition and if you believe anything disobeyed that 'natural law', such as a boulder being unable to magically float through a solid brick wall if observation implies it must always be able to float through a solid wall, then, in that
universe, it would be that
which would be the stupid superstitious belief in the 'supernatural'! (who ever heard of a boulder that can't magically float through a solid brick wall! ? I suppose next you would say there is no god or ghosts! ).
Who agrees xor disagrees with my above definition?