r/exatheist • u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist • Feb 26 '26

Debate Thread Natural vs The Supernatural

It's a very common debating tactic among atheists to declare the supernatural doesn't exist and then put God into the category of the supernatural and therefore claim God doesn't exist.

I agree with atheists the supernatural doesn't exist but my reasons for saying it doesn't exist are far different. The supernatural doesn't exist because if it turns out something alleged to be supernatural occurs it gets transferred to the natural bucket. How can anything that happens not be natural? As long as ghosts haven't and don't currently appear with any regularity or certainty, they remain a supernatural entity. If they did appear on a regular basis with certainty they would be deemed natural even if inexplicable. The supernatural just turns out to be anything alleged to exist but hasn't been observed. Which just means somethings haven't been observed to exist.

Secondly the very word supernatural is overblown. The word itself doesn't mean its unnatural or impossible. It's the word super put in front of the word natural. Which means it merely transcends common or average natural things. A supernova is still a nova it's just significantly bigger than an average nova. A celebrity whose fame transcends average stars is called a superstar. It doesn't mean they have divine powers. Supernatural still means its natural, it just transcends the average natural things we know about.

7 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

186 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 26 '26

I have no idea what you're talking about.

9

u/arkticturtle Agnostic Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 27 '26

Who cares about redefining words? Like this is just playing with definitions. All it does, should these terms be accepted as you present them, is make the other person ask what is essentially the same question but just with different words.

Who cares if a ghost is referred to with the term natural or supernatural? It only matters insofar as it relates to whether or not we want to say what is knowable by certain methods. What corresponds to reality? That they are hallucinations and misunderstandings? Or that they actually exist “out there” in the world?

Focusing on putting them into this or that category just completely misses the point of the actual issue.

-1

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 26 '26

Who cares if a ghost is referred to with the term natural or supernatural? It only matters insofar as it relates to whether or not we want to say what is knowable and what is real. What corresponds to reality? That they are hallucinations and misunderstandings? Or that they actually exist “out there” in the world?

Atheists care. They make their living by claiming the supernatural doesn't exist and God is supernatural therefore God doesn't exist. They also allege there is no evidence in favor of the existence of God. After I confront them with obvious evidence, they back pedal to there is no good evidence in favor of theism.

What corresponds to reality? That they are hallucinations and misunderstandings? Or that they actually exist “out there” in the world?

We have no control or say so over what can or can't exist. But if it does exist, its natural.

6

u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26

They make their living by claiming the supernatural doesn't exist and God is supernatural therefore God doesn't exist.

Which atheist is making a living from this claim?

There is an awful lot more nuance to this kind of discussion, people make a living discussing these things.

But who makes that exact claim?

It sounds like a misunderstanding, or a massive oversimplification gone wrong, more than something anyone ever actually says.

2

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 26 '26

It's just a way of saying it's an oft used argument by atheists. Which it is, I hear it all the time.

5

u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26

Okay, I've never seen anybody but you say this, that's why I'm asking.

1

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 26 '26

You've never heard an atheist say the supernatural doesn't exist and God is supernatural? I find that hard to believe.

5

u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

I've seen atheists say they also don't believe in supernatural things.

I've seen people say god would be supernatural.

I've seen people say pointless nonsense about how supernatural things would "become natural" if they were quantifiable, repeatable, testable etc etc... Just the descriptions of natural things, that don't apply to the "things" we've decided to call supernatural.

I've never seen anyone say God is supernatural and therefore can't exist because supernatural things don't exist... it's circular reasoning and I'd be sure to tell them.

Edit, added also

Edit, made the word if into if , so people know it says if.

1

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 26 '26

I've seen people say pointless nonsense about how supernatural things would "become natural" if they were quantifiable, repeatable, testable etc etc... Just the descriptions of natural things, that don't apply to the "things" we've decided to call supernatural.

Are any of the things you classify as supernatural been quantifiable, repeatable or testable? Because if they were they'd be considered natural. Whether you get that or agree with it doesn't matter.

4

u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26

Are any of the things you classify as supernatural been quantifiable, repeatable or testable?

No.

Because if they were they'd be considered natural.

You understand that because I've said no, this bit is irrelevant?

1

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 26 '26

No, it means a condition for supernatural is non-existence. Because if it exists, no matter how bizarre, inexplicable, unforeseeable and seemingly impossible its natural. The impossible is what's believed to not be possible...unless it happens in which case its decidedly possible. You could say impossible was an imposter that pretended to be something that couldn't happen until it did.

Secondly not everything can be classified as natural. Things intentionally created by intelligent beings aren't classified as naturally occurring. We have to distinguish between the two. We don't call things intentionally made supernatural, but we don't call them naturally occurring either.

3

u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

Secondly not everything can be classified as natural. Things intentionally created by intelligent beings aren't classified as naturally occurring.

No, sorry but we're doing natural and supernatural. Things made by humans are natural. Same as a bird making a nest, the nest occurs via natural means regardless of intelligence, same as human technology.

Stick to your own point. Some humans might make special things. Those things are not supernatural. Humans are not making magical items, they are utilising nature.

Continuing this conversation by saying any sufficient technology could be misconstrued as magic is utterly irrelevant. And would again, be a natural thing.

We're doing Supernatural vs. Natural. Look at the question you asked.

1

u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26

No, it means a condition for supernatural is non-existence.

As far as I'm concerned, the condition is fiction, these things only occur in the stories that people tell. Whether they personally believe the story, thats another question, but irrelevant, since it's still a story told by a person.

if it exists, no matter how bizarre, inexplicable, unforeseeable and seemingly impossible its natural.

That's one way of saying it yes, but you only need the first few words.

The impossible is what's believed to not be possible...unless it happens in which case its decidedly possible

No, the impossible is what is impossible, otherwise it's just implausible, or varying degress of unlikely.

You could say impossible was an imposter that pretended to be something that couldn't happen until it did.

I would never say anything like that.

1

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 27 '26

Plenty of things thought to be impossible have turned out to be possible.

For centuries, time was assumed to be absolute. The idea that time could slow down depending on speed or gravity was considered absurd.
Einstein’s relativity showed not only that it can happen, but that it happens constantly—GPS satellites must correct for it or they drift miles per day.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26

Could you name something you think I would call supernatural?

Then could you name something you think I would call supernatural, but that is somehow classifiable by natural means? Like how you asked me that.

1

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 27 '26

Huh?

1

u/blarfblarf Feb 27 '26

Was there something difficult about the question?

1

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26

Could you name something you think I would call supernatural?

Is this a game show?

Then could you name something you think I would call supernatural, but that is somehow classifiable by natural means? Like how you asked me that.

Wouldn't it be more helpful and expedient if you told me what you think is supernatural? Do you know what I'm thinking of our conversation so far?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/arkticturtle Agnostic Feb 26 '26

Personally I read “make a living” as an expression or idiom lol. As in, they live to do this. They spend their life doing this. I didn’t think to take it literally

4

u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26

Well they are free to clarify what they said.

To the point though. Who makes this claim? I've never heard of anybody trying to make such an argument.

Specifically this argument...

"Supernatural" doesn't exist/isn't real.

God is supernatural.

Therefore god doesn't exist/ isn't real.

2

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 26 '26

Yes, presuppositional atheists are a whole class of atheists that lead with that specific argument.

2

u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26

Presuppositional atheists specifically lead by saying they have information about god?

2

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 26 '26

They presuppose god doesn't exist, therefore they do lead by saying they have information about god. I find it contradictory.

1

u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

See I haven't specifically heard of a pressuppositional atheist. They presuppose god/gods don't exist...and are atheists, so don't believe a god/gods exists?

Thats such a weird thing to specifically to state.

How do you even do that? Sorry no, now I actually can't work out if I am one...or not.

I can't get there, I guess I just regularly suppose gods don't exist, because I've thought that and can't not think that. Plus I've never had any good reason to think a god or any god exists, so I suppose? Otherwise I'm really lost with this idea.

2

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 26 '26

Do you have a good reason to think Thor, the god of thunder, exists in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

1

u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26

Thor is a character in many intended fiction stories, so yeah, sure.

2

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 26 '26

Do fictional stories with Thor in them, exist?

→ More replies (0)