# Supernatural vs natural
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589
**Category:** Challenges
**Created:** [June 8, 2026, 1:06pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589 "2026-06-08T13:06:22Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@The\_Emotion](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/The_Emotion)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2026, 1:06pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/1 "2026-06-08T13:06:22Z")
Which one is true and why do I feel that it’s naturalism ?
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2026, 1:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/2 "2026-06-08T13:28:19Z")
Goes like this:
Nature/Eternity (the what)
Action/Supernature (the how)
Quality (the why)
K?
---
### Author:  [@10yrsPhilosStudents](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/10yrsPhilosStudents)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2026, 3:16pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/3 "2026-06-08T15:16:20Z")
Supernatural only makes sense with natural so that is the first error.
Second error is that if Nature didn’t create it self there must something above nature.
Third error is to confuse feelilng “I feel” with thinking.
Fourth error is to think something is important while concluding that something is nothing
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2026, 3:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/4 "2026-06-08T15:49:03Z")
> [@The\_Emotion](#):
>
> Which one is true
Neither
---
### Author:  [@The\_Emotion](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/The_Emotion)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2026, 4:18pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/5 "2026-06-08T16:18:55Z")
There’s a third thing ? Other than naturalism and supernaturalism.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2026, 5:13pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/6 "2026-06-08T17:13:10Z")
Quality is the why observed in the capacity of objects/whats and motivating their actions/behaviors/hows… choices.
It’s not three as in tritheism (an aggregate of individuals)… no…
It’s three as in triunity.
---
### Author:  [@PerpetuallyCurious](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PerpetuallyCurious)
#### Post date: [June 9, 2026, 7:12am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/7 "2026-06-09T07:12:01Z")
What reason do we have to believe that the supernatural is real? What facts necessitate the concept?
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [June 9, 2026, 8:19am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/8 "2026-06-09T08:19:25Z")
> [@The\_Emotion](#):
>
> There’s a third thing ? Other than naturalism and supernaturalism.
There are all sorts of isms. What is the category that you see naturalism and supernaturalism as the only options.
Also you could believe in what get called supernatural phenomena and consider them natural.
These aren’t really symmetrical categories, because naturalism is the belief that everything is natural, but of course, we don’t know what that means really yet. And supernaturalism does not mean that everything is supernatural. There are beliefs in a sense that would say that everything is supernatural, like you could have forms of Hinduism that would say everything is a part of God, you know, Brahma or Shiva or something. So I don’t, you know, I don’t really even know what the categories are here. I think it might be better to say something like, not using -isms, but it sounds like you might be saying, do you think we only have natural things or just are there also supernatural things? But the word supernatural is loaded because it implies that this is real, but it is beyond nature. Well, you can have that belief system and usually that’s some kind of dualism. But you can believe, as I said, in what gets called supernatural entities, but consider it natural. I mean, if it’s part of the nature of the universe, or even if it’s transcendent of the universe, but it’s part of what is considered real, why wouldn’t it be nature? If there’s a God, why is God not natural? Now, of course, the Abrahamic religions have a problem with that idea, but, you know, pagan, pantheistic, animistic things, they don’t have that dualism.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 9, 2026, 8:40am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/9 "2026-06-09T08:40:10Z")
Change.
Change is an abstraction that would be impossible if everything stayed the way it is.
Every improvement is supernatural.
Even every decay/breakdown is supernatural.
The natural subsumes the supernatural because it cannot be/express itself without it.
heh
---
### Author:  [@The\_Emotion](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/The_Emotion)
#### Post date: [June 9, 2026, 8:54am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/10 "2026-06-09T08:54:55Z")
That’s what I am thinking it seems that the natural can be proven while the supernatural cannot.
---
### Author:  [@PerpetuallyCurious](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PerpetuallyCurious)
#### Post date: [June 9, 2026, 2:23pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/11 "2026-06-09T14:23:18Z")
I’m not asking about proof, but what makes the concept necessary? What is the cognitive need for it? We need the concept ‘nature’ so we can think and talk about the world we live in.
I know that the ‘supernatural’ can’t be proved because there’s no step of logic to get from the natural to a place that contradicts it.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 9, 2026, 3:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/12 "2026-06-09T15:40:20Z")
Well, first A equals A. And then something changes and A isn’t quite the same anymore, but it’s still A…so what happened?
Not contradiction. Not completely.
The Nature that subsumes all changes some people consider the supernatural. Kant just calls it Nature. …because it’s reality, man.
---
### Author:  [@meno41](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/meno41)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2026, 10:47am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/13 "2026-09-05T10:47:00Z")
If you say you understand the supernatural then you don’t, as by the same token you claim enlightenment one way or the other, then you are not
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2026, 1:04pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/14 "2026-09-05T13:04:28Z")
> [@meno41](#):
>
> If you say you understand the supernatural then you don’t
Quite the conclusion.
---
### Author:  [@PerpetuallyCurious](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/PerpetuallyCurious)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2026, 2:09pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/15 "2026-09-05T14:09:04Z")
Supernatural is a contradiction in terms. To exist is to be something specific, to have a specific identity or nature. When we speak of nature, we are speaking of existence. The collection of things that act and interact with each other according to their nature.
But what is the supernatural supposed to be? It’s supposed to be outside of nature, which means:
Outside of identity.
Outside of causality.
Nothing in particular.
Indistinguishable.
Possessing no characteristics.
non-existent.
Everything that exists is natural.
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2026, 3:05pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/16 "2026-09-05T15:05:54Z")
> [@The\_Emotion](#):
>
> That’s what I am thinking it seems that the natural can be proven while the supernatural cannot.
It’s a term that came out of Christian, medieval theology. Pagans would not have such a concept. Everything, including gods, spirits, whatever is natural.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2026, 3:39pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/17 "2026-09-05T15:39:44Z")
Kant called God Nature. He’s a Christian js
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2026, 4:25pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/18 "2026-09-05T16:25:55Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> Kant called God Nature. He’s a Christian js
1. Could you find that quote? I don’t think it is the case. In fact, he drew a hard line between Nature (the phenomenal world we can observe, bound by physical laws and cause-and-effect) and God (a noumenal concept that lies entirely beyond human sensory experience and cannot be proven or observed through nature).
2. More importantly, even if it’s true, it wouldn’t contradict anything I said. He’s not a medieval theologian. He’s an Enlightenment Christian philosopher, with a philosophy quite different from medieval theologians. js
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2026, 5:01pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/19 "2026-09-05T17:01:33Z")
Read all my scribbled notes and scan the document for the word nature & notice how he uses it all throughout. That’s just one example.
> **[Kant idea for a universal history with a cosmopolitan purpose.pdf](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wtXoLk6_R9sIEZ6o0XjBC4rFukgi3hhm/view?usp=drivesdk)**
>
> Google Drive file.
Next, as to your criticism that he wasn’t mainstream Christian…
I sparked up a conversation with Copilot about this once (or twice) and a debate ensued, and I pretty much won.
How it started:
Me to Copilot: Hiiii 🙂 The screenshots are Kant’s ethical triad from “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals.” In that text he affirms Jesus as the Holy One of the Gospels. In this link, Kant affirms the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and agrees the Son (Logos) is the Idea towards which the good will aims to concretize in action, bringing the eternal kingdom of ends to earth. Thoughts? [https://dn790000.ca.archive.org/0/items/religionwithin00kantuoft/religionwithin00kantuoft.pdf](https://dn790000.ca.archive.org/0/items/religionwithin00kantuoft/religionwithin00kantuoft.pdf)
I’d rather you just read that link because it is Kant directly, but let me know if you want to read the conversation about it between me and Copilot.
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2026, 5:30pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589/20 "2026-09-05T17:30:11Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> Next, as to your criticism that he wasn’t mainstream Christian…
I did not say that. It seems like you are trying to create disagreement.
I refer to medieval theologians. You say Kant said God is Nature, js. Now you are saying I am saying he’s not mainstream Christian which I never said.
Perhaps I think he’s mainstream and they are not. But I haven’t even thought in those terms.
As far as I can see nowhere in that document does Kant say God is nature. God is connected to Providence. He capitalist the ‘N’ in Nature as was their habit.
You did not respond to my point about how he divided phenomena (nature) from noumena. And you gave me a seven page document instead of just providing a quote. He’s not Spinozian and it would contradict thousands of things he says in that text and other texts if he said, as you asserted, that God is Nature.
Please leave me alone in this thread. In any case, I will leave you alone here.
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/supernatural-vs-natural/85589.md?page=2)