Talk:Supernatural

How does supernatural differ from paranormal?

This article could benefit from an outline of how the word "supernatural" differs from "paranormal". It could also point out that when psychologists come across unexplained phenomena, they call it "paranormal", when theologians come across unexplained phenomena, they call it supernatural. Vorbee (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to say this myself. The articles on both Supernatural and Paranormal make similar points and use similar definitions, notably that events and phenomena so described are not susceptible to explanation in the light of current scientific knowledge. The Supernatural article even uses the word 'paranormal', without hyperlinking it incidentally. Unless someone can make a clear distinction between the two, it might be better to merge them, since if an intelligent, educated person can't give a pair of distinct and comprehensible definitions, they're effectively the same. I don't accept the contention earlier in this thread that 'supernatural' has any specific reference to Biblical or other events within the purview of Christianity. I'd never heard that claim before, in fact. I don't have the background to draw up definitions, because to me they're the same, but over to someone more expert. Chrismorey (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference is that supernatural usually entails religious or divine significance. Whereas paranormal does not. Aliens, ghosts, abductions, orbs, monsters, magic, and mainly all science fiction are all non-religious things in general and these are paranormal. Think Ghostbusters and Tales of the Crypt or Twilight Zone. The moment you talk about miracles or mythology they are get into the spiritual and religious. Supernatural emerged from theology in the medieval period but it has since been narrowed to divine matters.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supernatural and Paranormal have distinct but not interchangeably. Happypengirl (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring of referenced lead material

Per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to summarise the article. By deleting material, it's as plain as day that you're deliberately trying to slant the article's lead. Simply stating things like 'WP:SYNTH' is not a reason. There is no synthesis. Simply mentioning that there are skeptics is not sufficient. This is not going to happen. Note that Wikipedia has a bias, and it's not a bias that supernatural things exist, unless you can prove that scientifically. GliderMaven (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise caution on this because you have already violated 3RR and have reverted 4 times. You never really spelled out your issue earlier on your edits. I specified numerous issues and even another editor stepped in and reverted you too. So its not just one editor seeing an issue.
I restored the wording to a major extent in my last edit [1] because I think some of the wording was decent and updated some for the references to be more academic. But numerous issues were there:
  • For one the direct sources on James Randi are not reliable and the NY times and Rolling Stone article is not enough to show that it is notable to be in the lead. Clearly it is WP:UNDUE since it was not taken seriously by many in the first place, certainly had no backing by an academic institution for its validity, and is certainly not informative of the article contents, and most importantly James Randi is not a scholar or expert on the supernatural - he is a magician. Furthermore, the challenge was for people who claimed to have paranormal powers [2] and the official challenge rules stipulated that the participant must agree, in writing, to the conditions and criteria of their test, so this never tested the supernatural in general. It was mainly paranormal people and usually psychics.
  • The WP:SYN is in the first sentence "A supernatural manifestation or event requires a violation of physical law". The "Halman 2010" does not claim that. Most sources on the supernatural just claim that is is not subject to the laws of nature, not that it must violate anything. Furhtermore, the section on the history of the supernatural clearly shows that the supernatural is not so cut and dry, but complex.
  • The claim "Historically, supernatural powers have been invoked to explain phenomena as diverse as lightning, seasons, and the human senses, which today are understood scientifically." is also not sourced so it is WP:OR.
  • The claim "Supporters of supernatural explanations believe that past, present, and future complexities and mysteries of the universe cannot be explained solely by naturalistic means and argue that it is reasonable to assume that a non-natural entity or entities resolve the unexplained.[citation needed]" has been uncited since 2019. Its WP:OR. So that has to be removed.
  • Other stuff I added were improvements such as the history of the term, italics on the Latin. Removing questionable sources like "Aeon" (a weird digital magazine) and "Bad Astronomy" blog (which does not work actually) so it has to be removed. Victor Stenger's book is about God, not so much the supernatural broadly either so that whole sentence looks like WP:SYN too.
I have not violated 3RR. And have not used a third revert.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions and Examples of supernatural phenomenon

The definition of supernatural given: "The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature". Meanwhile, "The laws of nature" article claims that the ""Laws of nature" or "Scientific laws" or "laws of science" are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.". Therefore, Dark-matter and dark energy, without a definitive in-depth known experimental and theoretical explanation, would also be considered supernatural, because, as of yet, it is not subject to the known laws of nature, because their true state of affairs is not contained within the currently observed and theoretically explained laws of nature. At many points in history, "Lightning" and "MRI's" would have also been considered supernatural because they extend beyond the knowledge of the previous times, should they be considered supernatural as-well?. Perhaps you would like to add the unexplained phenomenon of dark matter and dark energy to the list of supernatural states, or change the definition of supernatural to explicitly that which permanently extends beyond scientific theorization.(If that is consistent with it's true usage) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.108.198 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources saying that Dark matter is considered supernatural or any of the other things you mentioned? A journal or research article? If you do, then that can be reviewed. Otherwise, none of what you have written can be placed on the article itself. Wikipedia runs on what reliable source state, not what an anonymous wikipedia editor states.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the definitions given by the Wikipedia article itself, and the linked article on the "Laws of science", of which was used in the initial definition used in the "Supernatural" article. I then used deductive reasoning from the premises given to conclude that "lightning" and "Mri"s would have been considered "Supernatural" in previous times before scientific explanations where given. While "Dark matter" and "Dark energy" of which both might eventually bear some empirically supported explanation, until that occurs, then the phenomenon is implied(By the definitions of those Wikipedia articles) to be defined as "Supernatural". I assume that those articles have good sources, why are we not allowed to deduce further from established reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.108.198 (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That violates wikipedia policy. We are not allowed to do original research or synthesize from any sources - see the policies WP:OR or WP:SYN. You are an anonymous editor as am I. Neither one of us are experts on this. Reliable sources on the other hand are written by experts, published by peer review, and are WP:VERIFY on these topics and as such their views are the only valid ones that can be used on wikipeida per the policy. If you have reliable sources from research journals or other academic publications discussing your points then there may be something to discuss. If it were not for these policies there would be infinite debates on every article because every editor has a different opinion on each topic.
So the best way to handle this is with reliable sources. Do you have any from say a journal or textbook or from a historian of science?Ramos1990 (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you, I was unaware of that policy. I shall scan the literature for sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.108.198 (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Best of luck to you. There may be something around the lines you mentioned in the literature. Philosophical / Theological sources are probably good place to start as they make such points about naturalism/supernaturalism distinctions.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary code translations of the word supernaturalist

Translations

believer in supernatural

  • Greek: {{el}}, {{el}}
  • Swedish: {{sv}}

Supernaturalistic biasing (gnostic atheism arguments)

(It's not truly magical/supernatural but ideologically supernaturalistic.)

(Strong atheism isn't tautological to gnostic atheism/ strong belief vs. knowledge)

(All important philosophical ideas must have a criticism section; atheism is a negationism and doesn't necessarily manage all neorationalist affirmativisms; rejecting Everettism and cyclic cosmology fragments the self-causal continuum and introduces the impossibile nihilogony. The majority of atheists want to keep fundamental things simple but this isn't how physical foundations works.)

(Legal implications utterly simplified: As a dishonest supernaturalist I permit the violation of physical laws for a puny period but being unfair I don't do the same with the law. As a dishonest supernaturalist my deepest definitions about the divine essence is "I don't know" which is agnosticism. Agnosticism is the condition of the thinker. The universe isn't agnostic about its laws because it wouldn't meet physical axiomatization criteria and matter would fundamentally fragment (actually it wouldn't be able to exist in the first place). Each entangled part (vaguely called observer: particle, object or individual) has a probabilistic perspective (it doesn't have full access of all Everettian multifurcations) and the Universe as a whole has a deterministic perspective. A honest supernaturalist would abound using agnosticism as the basis of his pseudoknowledge and he would become a neorationlist. Mental illness isn't a scientific methodology to justify knowledge. Why police doesn't use hallucination or other temporary or permanent mental illness techniques to substantiate the truth? The dishonest supernaturalist claims that supernaturalism has different standards of substantiation. The excuses are hollow because all people have emotions and many people have biases; and the supernaturalistic biases aren't proven to be superior or magically correct. There is no global omni-supernaturalism thus they argument that their physical violations lead to a single truth is hollow. The argument that many truths without rigorous substantiation exist doesn't differentiate them from lies and fallacies.)

The argument surrounding the acceptance of supernatural events, such as miracles, raises significant concerns when examined through the lenses of science, philosophy, and ethics. A central issue is the potential violation of causality—the principle that every event has a cause, a foundational concept in both physics and philosophy. Allowing one form of causality violation, particularly in supernatural claims, could risk undermining the consistency of all rule-based systems, including legal and ethical frameworks that govern societies. If we accept the suspension of natural laws in certain instances, it might set a dangerous precedent where any rule can be arbitrarily bent, which could destabilize the principles of justice, fairness, and social order.

In addition to the concerns over causality, the discussion introduces another significant point: the bias inherent in the creation and propagation of systems such as religion, law, and even scientific models. Human-made systems are deeply shaped by cultural, historical, and political factors. These biases are often invisible to those who propagate them and can reflect the interests of those in power, such as religious authorities, political regimes, or cultural elites. As a result, many religious and legal frameworks might not represent universal truths but rather localized constructions designed to maintain control or propagate certain ideologies.

From the standpoint of scientific rigor, causality violations—like those proposed in religious miracles—become particularly problematic when considering fundamental laws such as those outlined in quantum field theory in curved spacetime and information theory. The laws of physics that govern the universe are built on axiomatic principles, which include the preservation of causality and the limits of energy and information processing. To accept supernatural interventions in these processes would be to disregard the basic structural integrity of the universe as understood through modern science.

In quantum mechanics, for example, events are typically governed by probabilistic laws, but they still respect causality within the boundaries set by physical laws. Similarly, quantum field theory in curved spacetime provides a robust framework for understanding how matter and energy interact within the context of general relativity, where the curvature of spacetime is informed by the distribution of mass and energy. Introducing supernatural events—such as miracles that defy these well-established laws—would not only be inconsistent with these scientific theories but also create contradictions within the foundational assumptions of modern physics.

Moreover, information theory plays a critical role in understanding both entropy and the flow of data in any system, including the universe. The second law of thermodynamics dictates that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase, signifying that information is lost over time and systems naturally tend toward states of disorder. This principle of thermodynamic entropy is inextricably tied to informational entropy, which describes how information is encoded, processed, and dissipated. If one were to propose that a divine being could intervene in the universe without deleting or corrupting intraprocedural information, it would imply a massive inefficiency in the system, creating unnecessary entropy in the cosmos. Essentially, a non-entropy-producing system would contradict the very nature of information flow and the way the universe evolves.

The notion of a reversible computing system, often posited as a possible ideal, faces insurmountable challenges. Even the most sophisticated computational systems, like those in quantum computing, experience thermal and informational loss. These losses are inherent to the laws of physics, particularly because reversible computing requires incredibly low levels of energy dissipation, and the natural world operates in such a way that even the slightest informational change typically carries with it irreversible entropy increases. Thus, a universe governed by a deity who refrains from deleting or altering information would necessarily generate vast amounts of entropy, effectively turning the universe into nearly useless data junk. This would defeat the very notion of a coherent, meaningful cosmos and would create a chaotic, data-overloaded environment with no functional outcomes.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the axiomatic criteria by which the universe is understood. These criteria, based on scientific observation, logical consistency, and empirical verification, establish that natural laws and processes cannot be arbitrarily suspended. The predictability of the universe is contingent on these consistent laws, which maintain the order required for life and the cosmos to exist in a way that is intelligible and manageable. Allowing exceptions to these rules, as is common in supernatural beliefs, could erode the very basis upon which these laws are understood and applied.

The arguments against supernaturalism are not merely philosophical or speculative but are rooted in logical coherence, scientific principle, and the need for consistency in how the universe functions. Accepting miracles or divine interventions as real phenomena would require a rejection of these foundational principles, leading to an inconsistent and paradoxical worldview where natural laws could be bent at will, undermining the very framework that allows for coherent reasoning, ethical behavior, and justice to flourish.

In conclusion, the rejection of supernatural claims does not arise from a mere skepticism but from a deeper understanding of the universe's underlying principles—principles that ensure both order and predictability. Allowing causality violations, whether in religious narratives or speculative philosophy, risks dissolving these very principles and ultimately destabilizing the cosmos itself. The consistency of natural laws, the limitations of information processing, and the thermodynamic constraints that govern the universe all point to the impossibility of supernatural interventions that disregard these critical frameworks. Therefore, any argument for the supernatural must contend with these established principles, which ultimately form a more rigorous and consistent understanding of the universe. ~2026-88669 (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a short summary of your WP:WALLOFTEXT: what exactly do you want to change in the article and what are your sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Create the page: supernaturocentrism (thematic bias)

Supernaturocentrists (including the majority agnostics and atheists) base their thinking on the supernatural (including against it), placing it at the core of their thinking. For example supernaturocentrists deem ethics maximally fundamental (and in this order: not the quantum foundations, not the Big Bang, not stellar evolution, not chemical abiogenesis of life, not neuroscientific psychology, not sociology), but ethics has multiple interpretations and it is non-fundamental for the existence of the Universe and it also is a high-order multi-interpretation (no single ethics exists) of systems upon systems; far beyond driven from the program-like axiomatic prerequisites of the physical foundations. Supernaturocentrists don't understand, don't regard highly and don't care to learn the hierarchical superiority in existence which logicoproceduralism (rigorous logical procedures without interpretational biasing based on high-order systems like the brain and social ideas especially deemed as self-evident without explanation) has. The deeper systemic foundations and the deepest prerequisites for existence don’t matter, aren't understood, and there is no interest to be learned by the supernaturocentrists. ~2026-13216-5 (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you have reliable sources saying that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand your text. What is the relation between ethics and the supernatural? Ethics primarily concerns human beliefs about "correct" behavior and decision-making, morality, and perceived virtues. The various views on ethics don't seem to rely on supernatural explanations or excuses. If one believes that stealing in morally wrong, they don't need a deity or demon to instruct them again on the topic. Dimadick (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supernatural