That's a fuzzy concept though. By that definition, you could easily make an argument that everything we see is supernatural because aspects of natural laws that are not well-understood can be conjured up in any number of ways, especially if it's up to an individual to define what it means for something to be well understood.
And as understanding progresses, it would replace magic piece by piece. You could argue that's what happens with scientific progress anyway, but that's just a psychological description. Very few people are arguing that understanding replaces actual magic.
Interesting. Instead of looking for God in the gaps of our knowledge, you are defining God to be the gaps in our knowledge. I haven't heard that one before.
Hmm, not exactly, I think. If, I dunno, Merlin showed up in Times Square tomorrow and started summoning angels, that wouldn't mean that our world is a Lovecraftian place filled with unnatural phenomena forever beyond mortal comprehension; it would just mean that our models of reality didn't go far enough, and we need to do some research and start updating them.
I guess I'm saying that actual magic wouldn't be merely indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced science, it would be sufficiently advanced science. Magic is just the flashier, stagier term for the same thing.
I don't disagree with you, but that's not what people usually mean when they say "supernatural" and this is what I was pointing out. Usually, it's taken to mean a bit of literally impossible nonsense that happens anyway.
You're right - once something actually happens it falls under the domain of science. Most people don't realize that, or they don't accept it.
I would say that "supernatural" doesn't necessarily mean unbound by laws. It just means that the laws in question are not yet well-understood.
reply