supernatural force

If you pray to it, is it not a God or one of his ambassadors?

No supernatural force existe. There may be incomprehensible forces of dizzying magnitudes, which are quite beyond us to even begin to understand, but they would be natural, not supernatural.

Hmmm - please explain further!

I simply mean that nature itself is "miraculous" enogh to suit any creational fetish if you ask me. Why invoke the supernatural when we don't even know the full extent of what's natural.

As I see it, "supernatural" denotes the opposite of natural, and "natural" denotes the opposite of supernatural. Those are their only meanings.

Or supernatural implies beyond nature itself. Sound spectacular, but I think we can find the limit of wonder amongst reality, no need for beyond.

What I'm saying is, What is real in this universe already supercedes our comprehesion. To be supernatural would be redundant.

Diest

That is the point I'm trying to make also.

Yes, important point, Cryacuz and Diest. I am just saying that "supernatural" has no meaning apart from "natural", and vice versa. This is pure conception. In reality there is neither. There is just what is, and the dichotomy in question is a philosophically unnecessary addition.

Agreed.

What is the explanation of these creepy paranormal stories:

http://paranormal.about.com/library/blstories07.htm

 
su·per·nat·u·ral (sū'pər-năch'ər-əl)
adj.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

Of or relating to a deity.

Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.

Of or relating to the miraculous.
 

11333, your link reveals marvelously how the "supernatural" and "paranormal" are fictions underpinning an industry of scary made-up tales.
By the way, the term, UFO, with all its scary undertones means no more than "unidentified flying object." One sees them all the time UNTIL they are identified. If they are not identified or identifiable that speaks only to our technical limitations, not some imputation of their nature or origins.

11333, your link reveals marvelously how the "supernatural" and "paranormal" are fictions underpinning an industry of scary made-up tales.
By the way, the term, UFO, with all its scary undertones means no more than "unidentified flying object." One sees them all the time UNTIL they are identified. If they are not identified or identifiable that speaks only to our technical limitations, not some imputation of their nature or origins.

Re: supernatural force
One God is as good as another... If it answers prayers, then it is God.

But how often are your prayers answered?

How can we distinguish between a phenomenon that is "supernatural" and one that is "natural" but at present inexplicable?

We can't.

Sometimes I just think...
we're on a ball of elements, held there by an invisible force, hurtling through space at unimaginable speed...

Yeah - that's something- "super" or not.

Cryacuz, I wonder if perhaps we have a similar problem (as we do with the notion of natural and supernatural) between the apparently absolute differentiation we normally make between the "real" and the "illusory". While I do recognize a practical difference, e.g. the difference between the mirage of a body of water and an actual body of water. When we look at them with reference to the ontological issue of reality versus unreality, we must recognize that a mirage IS REAL; it's a real mirage. But we must not misinterpret its nature to conclude that we can swim in it or drink from it. EVERYTHING we experience is real--a real experience. It's the ontological stature we ascribe to it that is problematical.

I understande JL.

When we question the reality of something it is usually it's classification and categorization we doubt.

Like you said, a mirage of a water spring is real. A real mirage. But it is not a water spring.

Another consideration is the boundaries between what is real and what is imagined. Many things that are generally accepted to be real today begun as fantasies. That is, the reality of the given thing transformed from reality as an idea to the idea manifesting as something real in the physical world.
While the idea of artificial beings is very old, a writer named Karel Capek introduced the word "robot" in 1920, a term that was fictional at the time. Today robots are everywhere.

So we see that the drives of our fantasy and imagination, forces that spawn things that are generally considered to be not-real, play a significant role in shaping reality and the course it takes.
This only goes to strengthen your assertation that there may not be an absolute differentiation between "real" and "illusory".