I've used the example of ghosts in my responses, (if ghosts existed, it seems you must accept them as natural, not supernatural entities); in case it came across as such, it's not meant to be an objection to the position.
There seem to be competing definitions at work, depending on who you talk to:
Ghosts and spirits are clear examples of the supernatural. But if they exist, scientific methodology could test them. Thus, the supernatural can be tested by science. The wrinkle is that by allowing the supernatural to be tested by science, that opens the door to an spiracle test for prayer and God, which upsets some people - they prefer that God remain untested, for fear he should fail...
Nope, #1, Free Will, God ain't breakin' it, #2 Science can only observe material and
prove that Immaterial Exists, but it cannot observe it Except by Experience just like you cannot observe someones pain scientifically.
you cannot scientifically test the feelings of a sexual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], yet it exists, same with ghosts.
The supernatural is defined as that which is not natural, and that which is natural is that which can be scrutinised by science. Thus, by definition, the supernatural falls outside scientific purview. The wrinkle is that we have to then consider both ghosts and God to be 'natural', which is upsetting to some.
So it depends on whether you take a bottom-up or a top-down approach, I think.
Nope, Supernatural means Beyond and Greater than nature. not unnatural or less that natural. Supernatural is beyond nature, for example, Creation is Supernatural, yet when observed it is actually natural, however due to the fact that we never witnessed it, it is a miracluous event.
Another example is Substance Dualism, it is impossible to be strictly material, we are Spirits controlling bodies, now at first this was supernatural to me, however after observing and testing more and more it has become natural to me.
They might also genuinely exist. In either case, it seems your answer is 'yes', so I'm confused why you voted 'no'
.
Well, that begs the question of just what constitutes the natural world. If ghosts (â la Casper) exist, would they be natural or supernatural?
Actually less than natural since they are just like us, with no bodies. however since they can do what man cannot still Supernatural, hard to explain.
But in general yes, as we are Ghosts/Spirits with bodies.
What if it had a manifest appearance in the world, if it could interfere with natural things,
It does, look at yourself, you free will is an Immaterial Property causing material events, something you don't realize everyday.
When you look at someone, you just look at their flesh, not the actual being, when you look closely you realize that they aren't their teeth, their eyeballs, pink flesh(the brain), if Immaterial isn't real then when you communicate with someone you are talking to just flesh, basically just talking to yourself, like talking to the wall.
Indeed. But you said "If the supernatural adhered to objective rules, than those rules could be described by science" - my point is that, if a particle obeys objective rules but cannot be observed by science, then science can't, in fact, describe those rules. Would such a particle be natural, or supernatural?
How? That's like trying to scientifically describe the love I have for The Father, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit, that's an impossibility as Love is an Immaterial property, Supernatural, is Immaterial. The Only way you can Observe Supernatural is when Supernatural interacts with the nature we see(material) causing a miracle, like The Picture in my Signature, that Supernatural is observable.
Another question: If God exists, would he be natural or supernatural?
He created nature out of nothing, lesser cannot produce greater, therefore Supernatural.