As I said, it can be anything under the sun. If something is not natural, then it is unnatural. Why is it so hard for you to understand? It looks unnatural to me.
You need to think further to see the fact that without “unnatural”, there is no “natural”.
Apparently, “supernatural” is defined consistently in theology and philosophy of religion as non‑natural agency or causation; entities or events whose existence or operation is not reducible to physical processes. It can also be old-school transcendent agency (gods, spirits, angels, demons, etc.), whose existence is not confined to the natural order, or simply as a metaphysical exception (phenomena that violate, suspend, or exceed natural laws in some way). Also consider that we need not be speaking of gods but merely minor paranormal activity, which qualifies as “supernatural”.
Theologians, philosophers of religion, and scholars of religious metaphysics who work with these concepts professionally. Some Christian theologians include Aquinas, Barth, Rahner, Plantinga, Swinburne, etc. Then there are comparative religion scholars, and anthropologists of religion. I understand these people use “supernatural” constantly and coherently without a second thought, as I said. As usual, my actual position is undecided, but the term does exist, and again, as I assert, is more coherent then “unnatural”.
That may or may not be true.
However, it is potentially meaningful to talk about “processed and unprocessed food”. While accepting your point that it is not meaningful to talk about natural and unnatural food.
https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/comment-opinion/asa-ruling-on-use-of-100-natural-ingredients-claim/
Im inclined to change my mind and conclude like the Advertising Standards Agency that natural can be defined in terms of its ordinary use in language. However, perhaps I will defer judgement on that. Otherwise I will end up arguing with myself on the same thread.
So, you literally cannot describe one thing that is “unnatural”, and you also cannot inform us of just one thing that you perceive to be “unnatural”.
Like ‘what’, exactly?
But, again, there is NO thing that is not natural. Therefore, there is NO “unnatural”.
And, by your inability to provide anything reaffirms this claim of mine.
If you want to prove my claim is false, then just provide something that you perceive to be “unnatural”.
Coming from ‘the one’ who cannot provide a single thing that backs up and supports their belief.
What do you envision is so hard for me to understand here, exactly?
So, to ‘you’, ‘me’, supposedly, not being able to understand that there is some thing that is “unnatural”, but which ‘you’ cannot describe nor define here, is what ‘you’ call “unnatural”, correct?
Obviously, ‘we’ have a concept, only, of “unnatural”, and just as obvious this conceptual idea, only, perception demonstrates what is natural. But, again, if you do not describe some thing that you perceive is “unnatural”, then you are just further proving that there is actually no thing that is so-called “unnatural”.
For all my life, until I started visiting TPF, I thought there is no such thing as unnatural. Now I think that the concept of unnatural is real as a human notion.
That might be what some people define the word “supernatural”, consistently’, in some fields of discussion, but just because someone defines consistently never means that the definition is accurate or correct.
All entities or events whose existence or operation is not reducible to known physical processes are things that are already known, and which are, again, not “un nor super natural”. They are, like everything else, just natural things.
Again, none of these things are above, beyond, apart, super, nor un natural. All of them are words referring to natural things.
The words ‘para’, ‘super’, and ‘un’ in relation to the ‘natural’ words are just words used to imply some thing/s that are ‘not natural’. Which, once more, there are none of.
Human beings can ‘work with’, or more correctly discuss, these concepts, and even get paid money for just discussing, or what you call ‘professionally’, but unless these people can provide actual proof and/or sound and valid arguments for something, then what they are discussing is essentially just guesswork. Which, by the way, have to be discussions about things that exist naturally. As there are no things that are anything but natural.
A so-called “expert” implies someone who knows what they are talking about. Did any of these people really not know what they were talking about?
If yes, then which one/s exactly?
Again, as there is absolutely nothing that exceeds, goes beyond, is apart from Nature, Itself, there is nothing so-called “supernatural”, which further proves, and thus demonstrates, that they did not know what they were talking about. Talking about anything being “supernatural”, as though there is something above or separate from Nature is nonsensical.
Using terms or phrases constantly and coherently never means that those terms or phrases are true, right, accurate, nor correct. Otherwise, the earth would be flat, the sun would revolve around the earth, and the Universe would have begun, and would be expanding.
Of course, ‘the term’ does exist, and ‘that term’ might well be more coherent to you, then the term “unnatural” is, but considering the fact that there is nothing “super” or more natural than anything else, ‘that term’ is really not coherent with what is actually True and Right in Life.
1 Like
Nice Platonic Nouns. I am Enthused by the Discussion.
The latter. It’s just one of our many quaint notions. Life and its home, the planet, is a whole, and all is part of it, in some way/sense. IMO 
1 Like
It seems your inability of understanding the possible uses of the word “unnatural” in accordance with the objects and situations in the world, has been coming from the fact that the word “unnatural” has wide variety of different meanings. Would it be correct?
I recall this point has been raised by @Thrifclyfe already somewhere in the thread.
“Unnatural” has many different meanings and uses. You need to study them all thoroughly, if you are interested in the concept for its correct usage.
But I was just giving you the most standard use of the concept. It is just FOR describing an object or situation in the world, which is not norm or standard or expected. It is one’s own psychological judgemental expression against the objects or situation perceived.
Hence you don’t have right to claim it is right or wrong. X is natural or unnatural is one’s psychological judgement, which is strictly his/hers private mental state expressed in a statement.
For example, if someone said, “ages is a tree.” It is a wrong and false statement. Because age is not a tree. A tree cannot speak or write, but age can. Age is a human being.
But if he said, “ages is unnatural.”, then it is not true or false. It is his personal feeling expressed in a statement. Makes sense?
That’s an interesting thought, the idea that what we make is just an ever-evolving form of nature. I’d be inclined to say that even Coruscant was just nature made by humans, but the question is whether we’d truly like the nature we make if we didn’t preserve the nature that came before us.
I suppose that would depend on whether one defines nature as including humans and human creations. It would also depend on where the line is drawn for what uninterrupted nature is supposed to be.
That’s a really good point. If other creatures in nature could define nature, would they think humans are outside of nature? If aliens came to study Earth, would they see our creations as separate from the structures we often deem as natural?
Unless one started with the idea of a creature unrelated to all the life around them, then some kind of actuality of shared causes is required. Even if one is hellbent upon proving otherwise.
I think not. I don’t think people hike in forests and climb mountains for no reason. I think what we evolved in is important to us. I know how’s it makes me feel to be in the wild, finding things, seeing amazing views, running across snakes.
But I guess it’s possible that there are people who would rather be in cities, and don’t think it’s glorious to be out there when they get the chance.
Why did you presume such a thing as this here.
Now, your clear inability to provide absolutely any thing that could be “unnatural” provides further evidence that there is NO thing that is so-called “unnatural”.
Could you have recalled incorrectly?
It was not a presumption. It was a logical inference from what you have been saying.
I could give you millions of examples all day long, but I feel it is unnecessary and unnatural to do so. The forum space is not for keep listing unnecessary and unnatural contents. Keep it simple and to the point.
If you really need it, then you need to use private message or send me your email address, and I will try to send you gigabytes of examples. But I doubt it is necessary or natural thing to do.
I am just finding a bit strange and unnatural why anyone would need actual examples, when detailed explanations have been given numerous times. I would only give out examples when it is awkward to describe or explain the points. However it is not the case here.
In fact, examples have been given also numerous times in previous posts, but you failed to catch them for some unnatural reasons. I suggest call it a game.
You need to scan all the messages in the thread. I am sure I read it. You could directly ask him about it, if you are desperate.