VG,
For the reasons I have given, I don't think it's bizarre to describe certain phenomena as supernatural because it can't be investigated and demonstrated to exist by the scientific method. I provided a link to the dictionary for examples of the type of phenomena described as supernatural. Seems a good working definition to me. You can think it's bizarre if you want to.
Then you should (for the reasons I keep providing and you keep ignoring), and the “super” preface to “supernatural” still means “outside’, “beyond”, “over” etc nature (and not “not within current scientific understanding of nature”) no matter how much you would like it to be otherwise.
The adjective is available in language, so clearly people are using it without having demonstrated anything about the supernatural. You are welcome to insist they are wrong for using the adjective in this way. Your opinions and assertions on use of language is noted.
Your straw manning doesn’t get you off the hook. Yes of course authors use it in their fiction. You though (and other fellow believers too) don’t use it in that sense at all – you’ve already told us that you think a god/angel is “real”, not an adjectival synonym for fictional magic at all.
Perhaps you should make up your mind about which meaning you're attempting here: "supernatural = objectively real", or "supernatural = a fictional device". Which is it?
The definition I used was the current scientific rules and methods for investigating and demonstrating the existence of something and the explanations for phenomena that came out of those methods.
No, you began with “current” scientific understanding, then you edited that to “science” in general (including presumably anything science may discover in future), and now you’ve reverted to “supernatural = phenomena science can’t explain as of today’s date”. Neither version tells you anything about whether a phenomenon actually is “supernatural” of course, but it'd be nice if you finally made up your mind about which horse you’re riding. You can ride either one, but you can’t ride both.
I am not shifting anything - you just seem to have trouble understanding what I wrote. Given you stated that you are not certain about your opinions on here, it is understandable if you misunderstood what I originally wrote and have now gained a fresh perspective.
Yes you are, and you still don’t understand the point about certainty:
“Tea is nicer than coffee”/”coffee is nicer than tea” are just two opposed opinions. They’re subjective, and thus epistemically equivalent. That’s what you claim we have here, but wrongly so.
“Paris is the capital of France”/”Paris is the capital of Peru” on the other hand are opposed claims of fact that can be verified and thereby one can be shown to be true and the other to be false. They’re objective claims in other words, and that’s what we actually have here (because the arguments that undo you haven’t been falsified, and so are
sound).
Now to certainty: no matter how overwhelming the evidence that Paris is the capital of France and not Peru and so is objectively “true”, in epistemic terms still I cannot be
certain of that. I can think it very likely, beyond all reasonable doubt, impossible to falsify etc but I cannot be certain.
This is where you make a fool of yourself by trying to throw shade on the arguments (“I’m glad you’ve admitted you’re not certain” etc) as if the absence of certainty allows you to dilute objective truths (ie, sound arguments) to subjective ones (ie, epistemic equivalence).
You can go through whatever you like on here - whatever makes you happy and floats your boat. It's a forum for all, after all, and some posters may enjoy your perspective on things.
See above. If you won’t engage
with the argument you can’t learn anything
from the argument.
