The definition of supernatural does not include non-existance.
No, of course not. We are a long way from taking the position as a culture that the supernatural doesn't exist. Right now there are a lot of people who would be upset at the suggestion that the supernatural doesn't exist. Plus there is insufficient basis for asserting that it does not exist. Of course the dictionary isn't going to include non-existance. Wouldn't be PC. I was being philosophical, projecting into the future, stretching the envelope. I was working off the definition of "natural" rather than "supernatural." We have categories of natural, supernatural, and non-existant. I was questioning the long-term viability of the supernatural category as our understanding of the natural world grows.
So if we could prove that say the Christian version of God really exists he would then by your definition be "natural" and not "supernatural".
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. (Imagine the scenario when that happened. Great time to have cable news channels on all day.)
This "designer" could be an alien race, for example, way ahead of us. If so, then those entities would be recognized as natural. Would we worship them? Surely not in the same way as we worship our current (supernatural) deity, probably not at all. We might be subservient to them but we wouldn't worship them, I wouldn't think. If the "designer" turned out to be a cosmic force, we'd put it into a science book, not an updated bible. Seems to me that "supernatural" is mostly a euphemism we use to accommodate people with quaint ideas or at least becoming that. |
