Not the usual dictionary definitions but that does not matter when creating your own ideology and language.
I agree that delving into the depths of the unknown is good and intelligent, but to believe that speculative nonsense as real, is foolish to the max.
Regards
DL
That is likely why the Jews get Original Virtue out of Eden while the more stupid Christians end with Original Sin.
Regards
DL
How come you
copied my reponse?
Go back to Aug 9th, 12:29
The below is what I posted.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Like the rainbow.
The below was your response.
Or like rogue waves or that elephants could communicate over huge distances. People who were correct about these huge solitary waves and about elephant capabilities were told they were being irrational. Until much, much later when it turned out they correct.
-and-
then my response
Some people, like myself, easily dismiss these things although perhaps I can say that there may be something to psychic phenomena. Am I and others as wrong, scientifically, to dismiss these things as others are to automatically believe them without question or doubt?
No. 1 I would never post someone else’s response and call it my own.
No. 2 It must have been some fluke which you created by accident as far as I know.
That was your response to something else, on the 7th. The post on the 9th, the one YOU must be the creator of because it is your avatar, is a copy of my previous post. You copied my post.
I wasn’t accusing you of plagiarism, just of simply copying my post.
[/quote]
I can’t make posts with your avatar…
this post of YOURS, see the avatar…
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195028&p=2735888#p2735607
is an exact copy of my post…
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195028&p=2735888#p2735411
a post which has my avatar.
I think its very funny you are blaming me for what must have been your act. Presumably accidental, since it seems to have no point at all, but one that has to be yours.
Karpel Tunnel,
I think that the best thing to do here is to forget about this. Quite frankly, I have no idea about what is going on and I will not hazard a guess…although I just might intuit that you are deliberately trying to convolute things here for whatever reason I have no idea. I think that we have derailed this enough! If I am wrong about my theory, I do certainly apologize to you. Perhaps it is simply a question of your not quite understanding the ins and outs of posting the quotes, etc. It can be confusing.
At this point, I am lost in muddy waters.
But there is nowhere in my few posts, under MY avatar, that I copied your response and made it my own. My response was like the rainbow in quotes and if you will look beneath you will see that your response is outside of my quote.
[b]Arc: No. 2 It must have been some fluke which you created by accident as far as I know.
KT
[/quote]
I can’t make posts with your avatar…[/b]
Perhaps it is not even necessary. I cannot know for sure but is it possible that someone can manipulate another’s response within their own Avatar’s answer. I am just asking. I am not saying that this is the case with you. It is not a good thing to be so easily deceived…
Arc:Some people, like myself, easily dismiss these things although perhaps I can say that there may be something to psychic phenomena. Am I and others as wrong, scientifically, to dismiss these things as others are to automatically believe them without question or doubt?
KT:That was your response to something else, on the 7th. The post on the 9th, the one YOU must be the creator of because it is your avatar, is a copy of my previous post. You copied my post.
On Aug 7th you did response to a post of mine. That is where I spoke about rainbows and then you responded to that and on Aug 9 I responded to your post. All I can gather here is that you added to your post to me and I have not yet had the opportunity to respond to it.
Incidentally, we do here on ILP have to copy each other’s posts in order to respond to them (outside of the quotes) but at no time did I ever take your words and call them mine.
So, if if there is nothing else, can we please move on. … I will respond to your post when I can.
I wonder what it is that the universe is trying to teach us here ~~ individually.
Namaste
KT wrote:
lol We must be in Mexico!
Karpel Tunnel,
Hopefully, by this time, we have left Mexico. 
They are awesome to look at…even just googled. Waves are like something out of this world to me larger than life. How they do affect me.
That is something, isn’t it? I recently read a book by Jodi Picoult called Leaving Time and I gained a lot of new insight and love for elephants. Something else to cry over. They are awesome. Sometimes I have no idea why I cannot still believe in God considering what evolution has brought us to. What a world!!! What a Universe!!! Still to be discovered. lol
That holds true of many things which have not been seen or experienced by us. I do not think that that is necessarily a negative thing as long as we can keep an open mind.
I have my doubts about that but i suppose it is more based on the individual and what it is they feel a need to believe in.
Yes, I can agree with that. Based on experience too.
What is not right? To automatically believe?
True. You have to take the way of the scientist but most of us are not.
Well, unless I am misunderstanding your thought here - it is still “real” ~~ it is just NOT supernatural.
But I think that we can understand that to certain minds not having the knowledge to understand and so deeply embedded in the supernatural, that is the way in which they will see it. If I did not know better, I could see this awesome though scary Tsunami as supernatural – it seems so above the ordinary and seems almost magical. It is in a way magical (not the superstitious) magical.
True, like for some who believe in God. Based on what is seen, it can be rational to “see” a creator God albeit I wonder just how much what we believe is true.
Yes, I know this to be the case. I do not have a scientific mind nor an especially bright one but I kind of understand without really understanding much. 
Why do you think that was? Partly because we were afraid that that knowledge might make animals a bit more equal to humans? I was once in a forum for a little while where someone said that animals have no emotions. Probably viewed that way for the same reason - no way could they be like us ~~ having emotions. How could someone be that unintuitive and that unempathetic.
Well, I just could not help myself and you are right. My response was kind of disconnected. hahaha I think that science is wonderful. I only wish that I had the mind to truly grasp it.
Yes that is a far better way to end the discussion.
Scientists are human too and can be bound up, religiously, by their thinking and beliefs, especially if they have given so much time and energy to something. Yes? No?
.
I think we should settle it as perception is the thing that is super-natural or gives appearance of such to other things in observation or thought.
Is it then, tantamount to day, that super natural is sensible?
This whole topic is so superficial that anybody really concerned with the truth doesn’t really know where to start.
The first question is: have you have got your words right?
Supernatural:
adjective
Which of these definitions are meant?
If 1. there are enough inexplicable events in the world that are there, despite the fact we can’t explain them. The fact that the ancients called the influences they couldn’t understand daemons should be acknowledged in recognition of their ability to perceive these unseen influences.
If 2. there are far too numerous gods and deities to ignore. They are mostly believed in irrationally because reason doesn’t fit. It is too easy to forget that CG Jung told us that mythical narratives guide us, even if we don’t interpret dreams, and that it takes training to understand them. The Archetypes of our dreams become the figures in our tribal narratives or Gods in the dramatisation of our dreams.
If 3. well, that is just a play on words.
If 4. we still haven’t understood how conscious life, such as we have, came to be out of colliding stars and the material that became the planets. Sophisticated Humans, on the face of it, seem pretty supernatural in comparison with what else nature has provided.
If 5. there is a lot of behaviour of ancient peoples that could be seen to try and attract someone ‘up in the sky’. How did they get the idea?
If 6. it has been said by people doing things miraculously (inexplicably) to be a result of the direct influence of a deity. Perhaps someone should prove otherwise. Otherwise my answer to 1. should do.
The next question is what is meant by ‘belief’ since it is easy to say that I believe that these phenomena exist, whether or not the ancients were able to approach the subject scientifically. The whole of our existence is a mystery, and we haven’t even been able to get a widespread knowledge of self, let alone the mysteries of life. Much of our everyday life is ruled by belief.
What is meant by an ‘intelligent person’? Is it intelligent to treat everybody as knuckleheads, just because they don’t understand what I’m talking about? Perhaps I’m the problem and I should make myself more clear! As far as I am concerned, most of humanity is intelligent, it is just a question of external influences, whether that intelligence was able to thrive. I would even say that only intelligent people can be religious, and perceive the world as it is.
I don’t believe that religion is a game - except in the widest sense of the word.
The supernatural, by it’s description, cannot be perceived.
If it could and was real, then there could be another layer of supernatural behind it that it would not perceive any better than we perceive ours.
Think matrix and fractal math.
God over god is as old as Gnostic Christianity and Hollywood has used that theme many times.
Regards
DL
If you and I have to debate the meaning of well defined words, then we will not get anywhere.
Discussions and posters who cannot think analogically are doomed to get bogged down in definitions. That is why most philosophers say that the definition of word that might be suspect are done after a general chat.
Regards
DL
If it cannot be perceived then we could not speak about or of it because there is no experience to speak of. So how can we label something of which we try to talk about of which cannot be talked about?
But we can talk about it because we experience it all the time. There are natural things and there are super natural things.
The things Jules Verne talked about were not natural at that time . They were fiction. Ghosts are not natural yet we talk about them as they were. We create the line which separate natural and super natural things.
Supernatural is not a well defined word, for example. This is a philosophy forum. Part of philosophical discussion is making sure we use words the same way in the specific dialogue.
Supernatural can, for example, mean something about ontology. It is events that, as you say, at one point, cannot be perceived.
But it can also mean, events that some people perceive but that others think they do not.
And people have been wrong before about what some people claimed to perceive. Both thinking they were right and then also thinking they were wrong.
So one can blithely go forward in a discussion using supernatural one way, the first, and thinking one is proving something, while other people mean something else by the term and so the conversation is useless.
Useless. Cross purposes.
To rule out the discussion of the meaning of terms in a philosophy forum is to be confused about where one is.
I doubt most philosophers say that, but then I don’t think it is clear what they would mean if they did say that. Which makes me think it is even more unlikely most would say that.
Can one experience without perceiving?
It was stated that supernatural is something we cannot perceive and if it cannot be perceived then I am curious on how it can be discussed as if it were. If there is no perceiving of it or experiencing through perceiving it then there can be no discussion that holds logical merit. If something was experienced or perceived that seems odd then that is not super natural by the apparent definition that was stated above. Nature and reality is odd, for sure.
An easy way out of becoming clear in what we mean. Clarity enhances any discussion rather than getting bogged down. It is sad that your arguments do not allow for experiences that can only be explained by metaphor, allegory, analogy or myth. Many scriptures describe how an experience felt for lack of words. Your whole approach cancels these out without consideration. I know of many people who have had experiences that have guided them in life, but which they cannot explain. Very often it has been life changing.
In addition to this, your use of the word supernatural is so unclear that the question of belief in it cannot be addressed. It is the same when in Britain people are asked whether they believe in Brexit - what does that word entail? What are we talking about?
Yes, this is important. Two meanings get mixed together, often - one is that supernatural means stuff that does not follow the laws of the universe, is transcendent. The other is that it is stuff not yet verified through science. The latter of course could be natural. One could believe in wood spirits and psychic phenomena and ghosts and deities, but consider these natural. If one never teases out which of these meanings, you just get people talking past each other. And often the skeptics think they have proven something by saying that you cannot know supernatural things, since they cannot be experienced, since they are transcendent. Which is just sophistry based on framing the issue with one definition of ‘supernatural.’ Which is precisely what greatest does.
Artima wrote:
How are you using the word “perceiving” ~~observing, looking at or perhaps we can even use the term "subjective thinking?
Perhaps a better word to use in your quote instead of perceive in this case is to understand. Some might perceive or see something which to them would be considered to be “supernatural” in nature, as for example, a beautiful light pillar, but at the same time they do not understand that it is a natural phenomenon. Anything which we do not understand or have knowledge of, because this world is so beautifully awesome, can be experienced as having God’s or the gods’ hand[s] in it.
Perhaps one of the answers to your question is IMAGINATION. Can we, in actuality, perceive God? Yet we discuss what we have no “real” idea of to no end. I may be wrong in this though.