Good grief, freedumb2003! The "classical" definition seems a tad arbitrary — if by supernatural we mean "that which is above the physical world." What does "'above' the physical world" mean? If you define "natural" as "physical," such that only physical things are "natural," where do you fit the natural laws into this picture — which are thoroughgoingly NOT physical? Indeed, if you want to restrict the "natural" only to physical objects, then the laws' very unphysicality would render them "supernatural." And yet we all believe the natural laws directly have something to do with Nature.
And ditto with respect to mathematics and geometry — but they are not physical things either. Are they thus to be considered supernatural? Yet they, too, seem to have something to do with the natural world. And how about time — how "physical" is time? Does its lack of physicality mean that it is supernatural?
Then again, perception and consciousness are not "physical." Certainly they are not less "objective" for all that; nor arguably can they be "supernatural," for the simple reason that we observe that natural entities like human beings have percepts and are conscious.
In the end, it seems that the fundamental presupposition of methodological naturalism is questionable. It states that natural entities MUST have natural causes exclusively.
The question then becomes: What exactly is a "natural" cause? Does it have to be physically observable? Is Nature really reduced to physical causation only?
If so, a whole lot of things in this universe would be utterly inexplicable.
Lovely turns of phrases there, darlin', but they all net to zero. We can observe and measure things. We can deduce things from those measurements. Nowhere in those deductions can we say "here a supernatural entity stepped in." That conclusion has no applicability, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig.
And ditto with respect to mathematics and geometry — but they are not physical things either. Are they thus to be considered supernatural? Yet they, too, seem to have something to do with the natural world. And how about time — how "physical" is time? Does its lack of physicality mean that it is supernatural?
The nature of "time" is a fun subject and the basis for many a Star Trek episode. And quantum physics is the are that attempts to deal with it. But nowhere is there a spot for "here is where God intervened." Again, even if true, it has no applicability.
Then again, perception and consciousness are not "physical." Certainly they are not less "objective" for all that; nor arguably can they be "supernatural," for the simple reason that we observe that natural entities like human beings have percepts and are conscious. In the end, it seems that the fundamental presupposition of methodological naturalism is questionable. It states that natural entities MUST have natural causes exclusively.
These are interesting philosophical questions. Yet, in the realm of physical science they are best left to the individual scientists's musings after they have had a hard day where the results are not forthcoming. But you can only measure "exclusive natural causes."
The question then becomes: What exactly is a "natural" cause? Does it have to be physically observable? Is Nature really reduced to physical causation only? If so, a whole lot of things in this universe would be utterly inexplicable.
In a word: yes. Philosophy deals with the questions you pose. Science has to deal with the physical world.
If so, a whole lot of things in this universe would be utterly inexplicable.
Physical causality requires both space and time.
And yet from the CMB measurements since the 1960s we know there was a beginning of real space and time.
Or to put it more clearly, there was a real beginning of physical causality ex nihilo.
That means that all of creation, including that portion which science observes and measures, is a miracle per se.
To God be the glory!