If it were true, I'd expect at least one supernaturally gifted person to reveal his powers in currentyear in a clear and unambiguous way. Like going to a public square and flying.But that's not gonna happen, is it.>inb4 the supernatural is shyThat's what I'd say if I were a gypsy fortune-teller.
>>18703758A person with powers would still fall under the realm of the natural. So would Harry Potter btw
>>18703784>hehe I have a super special unique personal definition of the supernatural that I'll insist is the definition used by the general populace even though it's not heheheheheIdk why /his/ users specifically love to do this pomo shit.
>>18703785>supernatural = pertaining to or being above or beyond what is natural or explainable by natural law>natural = present in or produced by nature>nature = the material world and its phenomena, the forces and processes that produce and control these phenomena>"In the Harry Potter series created by J. K. Rowling, magic is depicted as a natural force that can be used to override the usual laws of nature.">"We may call this 'natural magic', since the idea is that it simply uses the powers of nature, albeit in a spectacular fashion. In this respect it is no different from technology"These are standard definitions anon. Does a wizard exist in nature? Yes. Does he use natural forces? Yes.
>>18703800Stop being retarded. Here, I'll give you some homework. Go stop random people in the street and ask whether Harry Potter is a story with supernatural elements or not. Once you get 100 responses, report back with the results.
>>18703804I see so you're attempting to make an appeal to popularity here. What does that say about your entire premise?
>>18703813>oh no I didn't mean it's the definition used by the general populace I meant it's the definition used by me and I'm right and they're wrong lmao
>>18703815Okay so it is a blatant appeal to popularity. You should have been more clear on what you meant if you hate using standard definitions so much. This is equivalent to saying "I hit a ball with a bat" and you actually mean the animal by using the word bat
>>18703820It's more like I say I hit a ball with a bat and you say that's animal abuse, claiming that "bat" refers to an animal. When I tell you to go stop people in the street and ask them what "bat" refers to in the sentence "I hit a ball with a bat", you respond by saying that I'm appealing to popularity.Words are not magic, meaning = use.
>>18703821Yes meaning = use and dictionaries record the usage of words. Why are you so buttmad that you're not being clear with your language? The context of the OP included Harry Potter and the magic system he uses is absolutely just a natural force (as I have shown) that only people with certain genetics can access. So you cannot even cope like this
>>18703829You didn't quote a dictionary, you quoted some tradcath's blog. >meaning = use and dictionaries record the usage of wordsThat's just an appeal to popularity.
>>18703831I absolutely did quote a dictionary I can provide screenshots. And no quoting a dictionary is not an appeal to popularity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum#Language All I am asking you is to be clear with your language since the Harry Potter context makes the definition I provided perfectly suitable
Dang, trolls actually putting in effort on this board.
>>18703832How do you think dictionaries are composed? You think linguists somehow derive apriori knowledge of the meanings of words from the armchair? I gave you a simple linguistic exercise in gathering data regarding the use of the word "supernatural" and you called that an appeal to popularity. You just got hoisted by your own petard lol.Btw the only quote in your post that claimed Harry Potter is not supernatural is indeed a quote from a tradcath blog.
>>18703758>Supernaturalism means people choose to flyNaturalists, everyone...
>>18703834They just record the usage of words, usually from literature but not only. All of the definitions I have given are extremely common. So much so that they were the first listed ones there in every case. Have you never consulted a dictionary before? You're also wrong I quoted from two sources the first one literally calls magic a "natural force" while your opposition to the other is just a thinly veiled ad hominem. It's easy to find more>In her critical editorial on the books, Focus on the Family's Lindy Beam comments: "The spiritual fault of Harry Potter is not so much that Rowling is playing to dark supernatural powers, but that she doesn't acknowledge any supernatural powers at all. These stories are not fueled by witchcraft, but by secularism."[3] Why is she saying that Harry Potter is using secular non supernatural magic?
>secular non supernatural magic
>>18703847>They just record the usage of words, usually from literature but not only.Yes, which is exactly what I told you to do and you called it an appeal to popularity lol.>You're also wrong I quoted from two sources the first one literally calls magic a "natural force" That's excellent, seems like really common usage of the word if you found two blog posts like that.
>>18703857Wrong you told me to ask "random people in the street" while denying the most common definition. I also showed you how your accusation specifically doesn't work. You are the one denying clear evidence for your own baseless opinion, why don't you provide a source that explicitly says the definitions provided are wrong?>common usage of the wordWhat are you talking about? This is about the magical system of Harry Potter not a "word". Can you learn to track for once in your life? Here's more for you>In his essay "Harry Potter vs. Gandalf", Steven D. Greydanus notes that, in the works of Tolkien and Lewis, magic is confined to alien realms with their own laws, whereas Rowling's world coexists with our own>John Andrew Murray similarly observes that Rowling's work portrays magic as a natural force to be manipulated, while Lewis and Tolkien portray magic as a gift bestowed by a higher power:>Christianity Today columnist Charles Colson asserts that the magic in Harry Potter is "purely mechanical, as opposed to occultic. That is, Harry and his friends cast spells, read crystal balls, and turn themselves into animals—but they don't make contact with a supernatural world. [It's not] the kind of real-life witchcraft the Bible condemns."[3]You used the worst type of magical system to make your point. You also didn't answer why the critic specifically called it secular non supernatural magic.
>>18703758Donald Trump has a supernatural power of being a complete incompetent retard and still have people supporting him. What else could it be if not a spell?
>>18703758Meme magic is the only real magic. A lot of people need to believe something is real or wish for it strongly enough for it to manifest. That's why most magic doesn't work anymore in general.
>>18703758you are just offended by magic because JK Rowling is "transphobic"
>>18703758The people who actually learned to use the arcane powers live in cabals that don't exactly show off. They know the future (which is in motion) through astrology and other methods of divination and react accordingly to anyone who could expose them. I know a witch personally and I'm suprised they didn't kill me yet lol. I guess they have some plans for me.
>>18703784>>18703800>>18703847Funnily enough, this inadvertently shows the failure of naturalists part. In ancient texts when the word 'supernatural' is used, it usually means that something was extraordinary, not that it breaks a default naturalist paradigm (since back then it did not exist). It were naturalists, who decided to draw a line between natural and supernatural phenomena for the purpose of having a safespace for their natural methodologies. And the posts tagged above show how vague and incoherent that line is, to the point of some naturalists talking about "non supernatural magic". Supernaturalism is fine. It's naturalism that has failed to provide additional clarity or any additional benefit at all.
>>18703758You are expressing a biographical detail about what would convince you.Of all the reported miracles, supernatural events, psychic powers, etc if even one of these events is real metaphysical materialism collapses even if all the others have some kind of non-supernatural explanation. You have the burden of proof here.Also, some things are just rare like ball lightening. Just because something does not happen on command does not mean that it is not real.Why MUST valid supernatural events happen on command? Establish this first.
itt: people who believe in literal magic seething and coping
Why can't you fags just admit to believing in magic instead of this insistence there's no meaningful difference between the imaginary and real. Using vaguely philosophical jargon isn't fooling anyone.
>>18704047Secular non-supernatural magic?
>>18704118>Secular non-supernatural magiclmaoChristian apologists's argot can be quite funny at times.
>>18704130lmao indeed. read the thread
>>18704142>read the threadI did, it's a bunch of based and christpilled e-crusaders getting pissy because op won't use apologist argot.
>>18704154It's atheists and christians alike not managing to find the natural-supernatural divide. Feel free to solve the issue, you smartass you
>>18704159Is a Pegasus natural or supernatural?
>>18704159C'mon bro don't be retarded. This is just the "is X a sandwich" nonsense again, and that doesn't somehow prove things that are obviously sandwiches are no longer sandwiches.Magic is obviously supernatural and acting stupid for vague socratic reasons is not a virtue.
>>18704163You did it, the divide is solved.>>18704169>that doesn't somehow proveYou're greatly overestimating how far naturalists have come in this question. They're nowhere near proving or disproving things. They're struggling to even define what they mean.>Magic is obviously supernaturalI'm aware.
>>18704204>Magic is obviously supernatural>I'm aware.Then what are you even babbling about?
>>18704204It's an easy question. Think about it for a moment if you have to
>>18704206About naturalists failing to draw the line between the natural and supernatural despite their entire paradigm depending on it.>>18704246Good argument. God is real, just think about it btw how's that for an answer?
>>18704315>About naturalists failing to draw the line between the natural and supernatural despite their entire paradigm depending on it.That's a pretty wild assertion when the supernaturalists itt can't even tell that magic is supernatural.
>>18703804Yeah, that's because there are ghosts living in the school
Supernatural is when God does it
>>18704315Are goblins and elves real or imaginary? Yes or no
>>18704374I'm not going to split the natural and supernatural by naming and categorizing each individual claim and idea. If that's a concession, I concede every single point and take care
>>18704413>refuses to say that goblins and elves are imaginary HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA
Think it's crazy audacious for magic believes to whine about how naturalism fails to properly exclude their gibberish ill-defined bullshit
I am only a naturalist when I talk to people who believe in magic
>>18704413Yeah, I can't debate someone about the delineation between the natural and supernatural if you can't even handle a softball like that.
>>18704455The first four words were sufficient. As you can see in the follow-up, some naturalists (>>18704449) even admit the question used ill-defined bullshit terms.But it does delight me that naturalists hide their bullshit behind elves and goblins. How the mighty have fallen.
>>18704792>I'm not going toIntellectual cowardice thoughbeit. You can't give a straight answer because you got a pussy between your legs
Literally all your fault you can't exclude ghosts on naturalism (no, I'm not going to explain what ghosts are)
>>18703758>I'd expectWhy?
>all this conflation of supernatural with preternatural
>all this conflation of ghosts with poltergeists
>>18704118this one question has buckbroken gaytheists
>>18703815Can one never say "the common use definition of this word does not point to a coherent category of things"?
