What is supernatural? Is natural–supernatural even a meaningful

Congrats, you now realize human's like to pretend to know everything.

>>9835414
The natural-supernatural dichotomy only exists and make sense within the context of the abrahamic faiths, in which their Gods supposedly exist outside of (above/super) the world we humans inhabit.
Western science co-opts the dichotomy but redefines "supernatural" to mean "anything that offends my materialistic sensibilities"

>>9835466
>Western science co-opts the dichotomy but redefines "supernatural" to mean "anything that offends my materialistic sensibilities"
Same thing with materialism and supernatural stuff being 'immaterial'. Doesn't matter just mean stuff that exists? If gods/ghosts/etc were discovered, they would have to be made of something. They would have to be set up in some way. Even if it was some exotic matter, some never-seen-before particles, it would still be matter. This means terms materialsm and immaterial are meaningless.

File: 1358008416093.jpg (34KB, 156x196px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 156x196px

>>9835460
>human's

>>9835414
Well, then supernatural would be something that breaks the observed patterns in an unpredictable way.
Like, you know, people used to think that rain is a supernatural event caused by the Gods or something.

>>9835597
>OH SHIT SON, SAY GOODBYE TO THAT ARGUMENT, YOU JUST MADE A TYPO

William Bumpington

Friedrich von der Bümpe

Umberto Bumpini

>>9835580
An immaterial medium is being used here to express immaterial thoughts. Someone's forgetting symbols. These words (symbols) represent sounds (symbols) which themselves represent ideas (fiction) which are then applied (faithfully accorded) to the surround 'called' 'material.'
Supernatural is just Latinate Metaphysical. Non-fiction relies completely on fiction to come off, which is probably why it receives the negative (non-). And ALL fiction is meta-.