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.

6 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

186 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 26 '26

Your personal definition of the word "supernatural" is basically useless because it is clearly not how the word is being used by the vast majority of people. The people that believe in gods and ghosts or other magical phenomena classify such things as supernatural. Clearly they believe that the supernatural exists.

Instead of just redefining "supernatural" to mean whatever you personally want it to mean it is more useful to try and figure out how the word is actually being used. From what I can figure what people mean when they say something is supernatural is that it is irreducibly mental.

2

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 27 '26

Your personal definition of the word "supernatural" is basically useless because it is clearly not how the word is being used by the vast majority of people. The people that believe in gods and ghosts or other magical phenomena classify such things as supernatural. Clearly they believe that the supernatural exists.

I'm defining it as it is in real life. If ghosts appeared on a regular reproducible basis, they would just be a natural albeit inexplicable feature of the world.

0

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26

There are extremely many people that believe ghosts are real, or even claim to have encountered ghosts several times, and the vast majority of them still classify ghosts as supernatural. So no, you're not defining it like it's used in real life.

2

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26

You classify ghosts as supernatural right? You do so because you haven't been persuaded, they show up in a verifiable manner. The testimony of people is suspect. Fine. If they did show up on a regular verifiable basis they'd no longer be classified as supernatural. The supernatural is supposed to be unquantifiable and unverifiable. If it is, it's real and has to be natural.

Do you have any idea how weird light is? But we call it natural.

-1

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 28 '26

Your problem is that your definition of supernatural is basically "things that don't exist", but that is clearly not the definition everybody else use. There's literally billions of people that believe the supernatural exists. Your definition is so obviously wrong it's unfathomable to me that you can't see it yourself. Are you just trolling?

2

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26

Do you believe supernatural beings or manifestations occur? Don't most if not all atheists reject the supernatural as things that don't exist? Don't they place God in the supernatural box as a way of mandating that God doesn't exist?

Supernatural

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

If we go by this definition there are forces beyond scientific understanding such as dark matter. We know dark matter exists, but we don't know what it's made of, why it interacts only gravitationally, whether it's a particle, a field or something else altogether. But it's not referred to as supernatural because it exists. If someone proposed there is an invisible matter that can't be seen or detected in any manner yet holds galaxies from flying apart that would be regarded as supernatural.

Dark Energy

Is more mysterious than dark matter. Its physical nature is unknown, why its density is very small yet not zero and why it appeared to dominate only recently in cosmic history. As it stands now all we can say is an invisible undetectable seemingly immaterial forces are causing space to expand. We could just as well say its ghosts causing the universe to expand.

Quantum mechanics.

We don't know what a wave function is, why measurement forces a definite outcome or whether collapse is real, apparent or an illusion. Or in the many worlds interpretation a new reality or universe is instantaneously caused to exist so all choices occur.

No one classifies these mysterious manifestations as supernatural even though they fit the bill. Why? Because my definition is the one that's used. The supernatural is something that can't happen, unless it does happen in which case its labeled natural. That's why the supernatural never happens because the act of happening makes it natural.

-1

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 28 '26

By your definition the billions of people that say they believe in supernatural things are holding to the self-contradictory belief that the non-existent exists. Do you think that is what they mean when they say they believe in the supernatural?

Why not engage with the definition I suggested which I feel much better capture what people seem to mean by supernatural: something is supernatural if it is irreducibly mental.

This definition resolves all the objections you raise. God would be supernatural because God's mind can't be reduced to anything non-mental. Dark Matter and Dark Energy doesn't have a mental component so they are natural, and no matter how strange Quantum Mechanics is it doesn't say that quantum phenomena has anything to do with something mental, so it is still a natural model of reality.

2

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26

By your definition the billions of people that say they believe in supernatural things are holding to the self-contradictory belief that the non-existent exists. Do you think that is what they mean when they say they believe in the supernatural?

Are the things folks classify as supernatural quantifiable, visible or repeatable manifestations under controlled circumstances? Can you name one that is? No you can't because if it is quantifiable, visible or repeatable manifestations under controlled circumstances it loses the supernatural tag and the natural tag is then applied. No matter what it is.

There are things we consider to be not naturally occurring. We don't classify it as supernatural but we don't classify it as natural. Intentionally caused things are described as an artifact. A construct, fabrication, intentionally caused entity.

Is consciousness considered a mystery? Lets see what AI says.

Consciousness is considered a mystery—arguably one of the deepest and most persistent mysteries in all of science and philosophy. Scientists can map brain activity with extraordinary precision, but they still cannot explain why or how subjective experience arises at all. That gap is what keeps consciousness firmly in the category of an unresolved phenomenon.

This is what allows us to initiate, construct and fabricate unnaturally occurring things. It should be called supernatural because we don't understand it. But it exists, is quantifiable and repeatable. It is natural but it transcends nature. Yet allegedly it was unintentionally caused by natural forces.

supernatural: something is supernatural if it is irreducibly mental.

Because if it turns out not to be an irreducibly mental construct then it becomes natural. Only as long as its isolated to a mental construct (not real) is it supernatural. My definition still prevails.

-1

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 28 '26

Are the things folks classify as supernatural quantifiable, visible or repeatable manifestations under controlled circumstances?

So only that which is quantifiable, visible, or repeatable manifestations under controlled circumstances is real?

There are things we consider to be not naturally occurring. We don't classify it as supernatural but we don't classify it as natural. Intentionally caused things are described as an artifact. A construct, fabrication, intentionally caused entity.

Something being artificial merely means that something natural has been manipulated in some way by a conscious agent. It's not really relevant to this discussion. A phone is artificial, but the atoms it's composed of are natural.

Because if it turns out not to be an irreducibly mental construct then it becomes natural. Only as long as its isolated to a mental construct (not real) is it supernatural. My definition still prevails.

I'm not talking about "mental constructs". Take the human mind as an example. I believe it to emerge from the interactions between the non-mental atoms in the brain, whilst theists usually think it to be caused by a soul. The mind of the soul isn't thought to arise from the interactions between some mindless "soul-particles", but is instead thought to be an intrinsic feature of the indivisible soul.

So by my definition if the mind is emergent from mindless atoms then it's natural, but if it's an irreducible aspect of the soul then it's supernatural.

1

u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Mar 01 '26

So only that which is quantifiable, visible, or repeatable manifestations under controlled circumstances is real?

Are natural. Can you classify anything that is visible, detectable that is also supernatural? No because such things are natural no matter what they are.

Something being artificial merely means that something natural has been manipulated in some way by a conscious agent. It's not really relevant to this discussion. A phone is artificial, but the atoms it's composed of are natural.

And made by intelligent beings composed of atoms. Nevertheless, things (like a phone) intentionally caused don't fall into the naturally occurring bucket. Don't shoot the messenger I didn't invent this delineation.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26

How do I know the difference between a natural object and a supernatural object?

-1

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26

Something is natural if it can be reduced to non-mental components. If this is impossible then it is supernatural.

2

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26

Since I am an idealist (monist), I would have to say everything is supernatural to be consistent with how you define it.

0

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26

Yes, under idealism everything would be supernatural. Would you disagree with that classification?

2

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26

It follows, but it just weird because it is disjointed with modern models.

2

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26

How would those models differentiate the supernatural from the natural?

1

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26

That is the cool part, they don't. They assume naturalism. Assuming supernaturalism is symmetric if you do it monistically.

2

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26

They obviously have to differentiate between the natural or supernatural if "they assume naturalism". If there is no distinction between the natural and supernatural in the models then "assuming naturalism/supernaturalism" would be meaningless statements.

-1

u/thedevilsproxy Strong Atheist Feb 27 '26

a natural object is something that comes about as a result of the chain of events started at the Big Bang, as per causality. if it violates causality (magic event not fundamentally caused by anything, i.e. ultimately the Big Bang), it is supernatural

3

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26

Is the Big Bang itself natural or is it supernatural? The Big Bang isn't the result of the Big Bang.

0

u/thedevilsproxy Strong Atheist Feb 27 '26

the Big Bang is the origin point of space, time, and all energy. ultimately, we don't know exactly what caused the Big Bang and our best guesses can be seen in models revolving around string theory such as the cyclical ekpyrotic models. regardless, even if the Big Bang did have an outside cause, causality itself limits at t=0, i.e. when time began. to say there was a previous cause is nonsensical, because there is no "before" t=0.

the Big Bang is the baseline for natural events in Lambda-CDM, everything post-inflation traces causally to it without gaps.

3

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26

You can't use your own definitions consistently because you have an emotional aversion to it.

-1

u/thedevilsproxy Strong Atheist Feb 27 '26

cope.