--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > <snip> > > Sounds like someone is holding out for a supernatural > > solution to the mystery. > > > <snip> > > Naturalism:- The system of thought holding that all > > phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes > > and laws. > > How would you define "natural causes and laws"? How > do you make the distinction between "natural" and > "supernatural"? > > Here's the relevant definition of "supernatural" > from my dictionary: > > "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the > visible observable universe" > > The relevant definition of "natural" is: > > "being in accordance with or determined by nature" > > These definitions leave something to be desired in > the current context, but I'm sure there are others > that are more precise. >
I would say they are not good definitions. If "beyond the visible observable universe" = supernatural, that turns many physicists into ghost hunters! Of course it might mean "in principle" observable. Dark matter may not be observable now, but we may see it some day (or infer its presence more likely). But then my religious sister says God is observable, and I'll see Him/Her some day (she tells me it's a Him). I don't think it's about the "stuff" so much as about the laws: A supernatural object or event is one in which the Laws of Nature are temporarily suspended (or violated). Something God may be able to do for example (or maybe even God is subject to the Laws!). (This all takes me back yonks to Lyall Watson's "Supernature". Remember that?)
