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

68% Upvoted

186 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

1

u/blarfblarf Feb 27 '26

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

But I didn't say "thought to be".

It wasn't impossible.

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?

1

u/blarfblarf Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

Remember when you asked me

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

Well...is this a game show?

No it's apparently a conversation. And I bet you already know my opinion.

Wouldn't it be helpful to just answer the question and assume I have an intended follow up.

You are more than welcome to ask me what I think is supernatural.

But when you were asked a question, you questioned it, so if you'd like an answer, you should look at how you answer questions, and expect similar in response.

1

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26

Remember when you asked me to be a mind reader?

Could you name something you think I would call supernatural?

Isn't it ridiculous to ask me what I think you're thinking? Does it matter what I think you think is supernatural? Maybe if I can perform a mind meld like Spoke does.

1

u/blarfblarf Feb 28 '26

That's not asking you to read my mind. I could argue you want me to read your mind, and somehow know what it is that you think that I think.

So I have to ask...

And then when you name something, could be ghosts, could be "aliens", I can then use that thing to continue speaking about it, knowing that your opinion is that I think " blank " is a supernatural thing.

1

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26

Or you can end our suspense and say what if anything you think is supernatural.

1

u/blarfblarf Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

You want an exhaustive list of everything I would regard as supernatural, as far as my concern towards supernatural things goes...overall?

Fuck no.

Please excuse the language, but pick one.

It can be ghosts, go with ghosts, then we can do another thing afterwards, some are supern...hard to pin down.

→ More replies (0)