More on Supernatural
My basic argument about supernatural (SN) is that the original Christian concept is not the same as the modern concept. When the atheists say there is no evidence for the SN It is irrelevant because Christianity goes bay a different concept, Now it; is true that a lot of Christians are going by the newer concept but that doesn't matter because those are not real doctrines of the church and the real concept is still diffused throughout other doctrinal fields,
The original concept: God' presence and power in spiritual experience will raise us to a higher level of consciousness and salivate human nature infusing it with divine unction. That is essentially mystical experience, The modern concept, brought in in the enlightenment is that reality is divided at the metaphysical into natural and supernatural. Natural is the Godless zone where God may not go and that is normal natural action in the world such as rain and seed time and so on.SN is "woo woo"and miracles and bigfoot and ghosts and all the BS stuff atheists can't stand.
Atheists use this concept in several ways. The first way I showed Jerry Coyne using. He says
...the Genesis story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a 6,000-year-old earth, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer, as well as paranormal phenomena like near-death experiences, telepathy, and precognition. If you invoke a form of the supernatural that claims to have real-world consequences, then those consequences necessarily fall within the ambit of science. This means that any type of theistic faith involves hypotheses that are “scientific”.Guilt by association he;s lumping in any disreputable unprovable idea as SN and linking it to Christian belief. None of the things he mentions are SN by the Christian doctrine, few of them are SN even by the modern standard. Adam and Eve and 6000 year creation is not SN even by modern standard, Here we see the second use, Because the cordon off realty with not God is natural and God stuff is SN then of course God cantering the world and so then do this irrational bait and switch where they go there's no proof for this thing that can't be in the natural world so therefore it can't exist at all,
The comment section my last post "Pix" asks: "Why does it matter how we define supernatural when we consider whether God exists or not? Why do we need to use the term in the discussion?" The point is atheists use the concept as leverage, By linking God to SN then saying there is no proof for SN they are in effect saying no proof for God and that;s the psychological impression that it is all that much less valid, But the original concept (mystical experience) does have the scientific backing they claim SN ideas don't have,
In my book, The Trace of God: Rational Warrant for Belief (by Joseph Hinayana available on Amazon)  I examine a body of scientific work consisting of more than 200 empirical studies from peer reviewed social science journals, I can link one to the other, Social science accepts that mystical experience is not pathology, it is not mental illness, it is good for you and it is valid as a definable experience that is not replaceable to a trick of psychology, From there I can link it God in a manner that warrants belief,
Pix says: "Are you trying to prove the supernatural exists? Or God exists? I thought the later. Have I got that wrong?" If the SN is the power of God the one entails the other obviously, Now whatch what her does: "If you have proof that ghosts exist, will you consider your goal to be achieved? I would guess not. As I understand it, you objective is to prove God, not the supernatural. So why get hung up on what supernatural means?" Because atheists re doing it, They are constantly using the lack of proof for SN as an implication that God does not exist, they do it based upon SN claims Christianity doesn't make.
Then Skeptical chimes in: "- Joe, I read the article. Before supernatural, they talked about huper phusin, which is similar in some respect, but they did not use the term 'supernatural', and it did not mean supernatural. The word 'phusin' means 'growth'. THAT's what they meant by the term. Your reading comprehension sucks." First, he is stuck on this notion:"they talked about"as though the standard idea was this huper phusin, the trickle says felicity it was the exception! I have pointed this out to him several times now.,My line says "Saler points out that St. Cyril of Alexandria is a significant exception, using the Greek huper phusin to describe theology of God's grace in elevation of humanity above nature though Christ." Saler uses that term exactly.I quote him ver batem, It was not a standard idea his is the first use, 
Secondly, what does it mean? Physin is derived from the root Physus from which we take out word
'physics," it is they Greek word for nature, It means growth because that is what nature is, nature is the realm in which things grow,Literally life from life. Translated in to Latin it is Naturaliks, from which we get "nature,? WE TAKE NATURE FROM Latin BUT IT'S THE SAME THING! It has no real bearing on anything the fact that saint Cyril used a Greek term meaning supernatural that' just the beginning of the terms,What did he use it to say? That's what matters, Then it tarts beimgusedby Dyonysius a decade or so latter. (444-500).
The Skepie thinks he has the lo down,Hes going to give the etymology,so he conclusions an epistemological dictionary that starts him off with Latin.Think about it why is it starting with Latin? Because we draw the term natural from Latin, naturalis. The Greek can mean the same and that's the theological history of the word but the etymology starts with the Latin cognate,.The dictionary starts with the major source not an isolated precursor which is what the Greek is. So here is Skepioes etymology:
Here is the etymology of the word 'supernatural, from Oxford Etymology Dictionary:early 15c. "of or given by God," from Medieval Latin supernaturalis "above or beyond nature, divine," from Latin super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature (n.)). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since 19c. Related: Supernaturalism.and he goes on:
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the "supernatural order" is "the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny." It is contrasted with the "natural order", which is the "world of material beings to the exclusion of immaterial entities". So there is a relationship to the elevation of the human soul, but that elevation is not what they define as supernatural.and on:
"I know you think you are the possessor the true Christian belief, but everything I see, including the article you are using as a source, says otherwise. You need to set aside your biases and see things a little more objectively."  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. would you like a band aid? I was just about to thank you for that quote from the Catholic encyclopedia because that says perfectly what my whole idea of SN is, That proves it;s still part of Christian doctrine,
You didn't find it just a bit suspicious when it said "the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny?" Hint what is the rational creature? Are rocks and trees rational? I can forgive Skep for not knowing this but (it makes sense he would not) but humans are rational, rocks and trees are not, What do I say SN is? (ab0ve) "God' presence and power in spiritual experience will raise us to a higher level of consciousness and salivate human nature infusing it with divine unction." compare"
Me:God' presence and power in spiritual experience will raise us to a higher level of consciousness and salivate human nature infusing it with divine unction.
Essentially talking about the same thing. Of course dictionaries are are made to reflect the popular use of a term, They are specialized for understanding theological application, The term SN was radically changed in the enlightenment so that's what the dictionaries reflect, eve this one used above the etymology reflects a trace of the original idea when it includes divine, The original concept is still clinging to Catholic doctrine.
RCC:"the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny?"
 Joseph Hinman, "The True Christian Concept of The Supernatural," Care Commemts Blog -
 Jerry Coyne, “Can Science Test The Supernaural, Yes!,” Why Evolution is True. (6/27/2012) URL:
available on Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714
 All my Greek books are packed up in a storage locker and I can;t et to them, I studied Greek asmy undergrad language. I read most of the NT in Greek.I know this word l studied it in Graduate school in relation to Heideigger,
 Hinman op cit