Mick P. said:
sumanoskae said:
Mick P. said:
sumanoskae said:
The term "Supernatural" is a contradiction. The word is meant to imply something that does not exist in nature, but since nature encompasses literally everything, if it exists, it's natural.
If by "Supernatural" you mean "The result of an intelligent creator", then I would say the big bang, if only because we know so little about it. That being said, a benign and omnipotent creator is still impossible.
Supernatural is not a contradiction. A zoo is supernatural. What is supernatural is completely relative. Words don't exist for no reason. You guys are not as profound as you think you are.
Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
So a Zoo is beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature?
If you define nature as any phenomenon not relating to humans, then you would submit that any hypothetical species that resembled humans would be "Natural", no matter how much the two had in common, which would be an arbitrary distinction.What makes you think language is infallible?
And what do you mean "What is supernatural is completely relative"? It's a word with a specific definition, how is it relative?
By the way, you said "You guys", as if you were referring to multiple people. So, you either made a simple mistake, or you've placed me inside of a category of people you've judged to have arrogantly assumed themselves profound, which is itself an arrogant assumption.
"You guys" is more than 50% of the responders who try to go all meta on the topic and shouldn't even be replying in the first place because the OP says don't reply if you don't have any scenarios to add.
Supernatural means outside of nature, not science. For a wild animal, that's a zoo. Earth could be a zoo. If you met a zookeeper one day and tried to explain that experience, people would say that it was supernatural. No call to get uppity there.
Of course what is supernatural is relative to the observer. By definition that is the case. The word probably predates modern science, if not the word, the concept.
You'll recall that I did answer the question, after I explained the issues with the term "supernatural". Besides, you didn't say we shouldn't be replying, (Which I would judge to be the elimination of potentially valuable perspectives) you said I believed myself to be profound. It's erroneous and patronizing to assume that my argument stems from arrogance, regardless of what other similar posters have said.
I'm not speaking in hypothetical terms; supernatural describes a phenomenon that doesn't exist in nature (As in, arising from the natural world) or that can't be explained via science.
And as I said, to assert that humans are supernatural makes no sense to me, it's an arbitrary distinction. Neither humans nor human creation are unnatural because humans are not unnatural; our behavior can be explained and attributed to evolution and psychology, we are not complicated.
In fact, were humans to transcend their nature, that too would be a result of their nature.
You're describing nature as a subjective thing, as in the nature of a human or the nature of a wolf, but this terminology is unfit for the question posed in the form. When the OP asked for a supernatural example, I'm fairly sure they didn't mean a simple inhuman one.
When an anomaly occurs in nature it is just that, an anomaly. It isn't unnatural for a human to born disfigured, it's simply abnormal. The genetic possibility still exists, it's still natural not "supernatural".
This is why the concept of the supernatural has no use in subjective terminology; when something occurs that is out of the ordinary, we do not dismiss it as beyond our understanding of nature, (Or rather, we shouldn't) we expand our understanding of nature.
Supernatural is most often used to describe phenomenon which are known to not exist, this should be indicative of the irony of using the term to describe a real event.
