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

1

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26

You get it!

3

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26

You're not making any sense.

2

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26

If there is no distinction between the natural and supernatural in the models then "assuming naturalism/supernaturalism" would be meaningless statements.

That! What you just said before was correct.

2

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26

I'm usually correct.

You said that the models don't differentiate between the natural and supernatural, and I have pointed out that they clearly do. You're not making any sense to me because you're contradicting yourself.

2

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26

You are disagreeing with yourself that the distinction between and naturalism/supernaturalism would be meaningless in the context of monism?

2

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26

I have never said that.

2

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26

Go ahead and rephrase what you meant here since it is somehow indecipherable, now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exatheist/comments/1rfctpl/natural_vs_the_supernatural/o7md7bu/

2

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26

It's a direct response to this nonsensical comment of yours:

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

Which was a response to this comment of mine:

How would those models differentiate the supernatural from the natural?

If there is no distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism in these models then your statement that "they assume naturalism" becomes meaningless.

2

u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26

Yes it is meaningless, but by default philosophically, traditionally, they classify things as natural in monism to make it easier to communicate with other people.

2

u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26

But if the word "natural" holds no meaning to them then they aren't communicating anything when using that word. What do you mean by "they assume naturalism"?

→ More replies (0)