I postulate and entertain the fact that all that exists are properties of subatomic particles that for 13.7 bya have been mathematically reorganizing themselves through Nature’s 4 fundamental forces. They are not supernatural products, but are animate and inanimate handiworks of Nature.  Supranaturalism is an alternative anti-supernaturalistic presupposition reconciling the spiritual with the natural. It embraces humans as a physical, biological, and spiritual species, and prodigiously allows us to build upon/with our nature. It encourages us to be the homos sapiens (wise men) we are capable of being. Supranaturalism accepts, trusts, respects, and cooperates with Nature, instead of denying, demonizing, or controlling it. I visualize, conceptualize, and contextualize a naturalistic worldview having equalizing and balancing forces within Nature, human nature, and our own nature. The ramifications of endorsing supranaturalism suggests that the potential exists for us to substantially satisfy our Nature based needs, and that we can build upon/with our natural inheritance and have some end-result times that include supra- meaning, supra-balance, and supra-health.

It was St. Paul who created the abysmal myth of Jesus Christ as a super-being. I appreciate and respect Jesus as a supra-being, a wise man, an enlightened messenger, but he is not some superbeing. Supranaturalism encourages (demands) an investigation into the properties of Nature. Is it time to overhaul and enthrone a rational monistic term like supra-naturalism, and dethrone that dualistic and divisive term  super- naturalism? Is it time for a negation, an exfoliation, a shredding, and repudiation of a fictional superbeing? I say it is time to throw all unreasonable and insupportable man-made supernatural atrocities into the garbage bin of history. I reject and can finally say good night to my night-marish childish-childhood worldview. My conscience will no longer allow me to entertain, tolerate, or adhere to the travesty of such a destructive anti-Nature and anti-human concept. My narrative is a denunciatory writing of the damage this cruel concept of supernaturalism has brought to the human world. I end my personal era of supernaturalism, and I begin my era of supranaturalism. If the supernaturalists of this world condemn this Naturalist-Libertarian and his supranaturalistic tendencies and ambitions as a persona non grata, I will gladly accept that appellation as an immense honor. I realize that karma might come back and smack me, or bite me in the ass, but I readily admit that I get great pleasure in mischievously goating and stirring up those silly supernaturalists of this world. :))

I have asked, “Can supranaturalism be that watershed Camusian concept that demands reason and must be rationally and extensively studied?” I endorse supranaturalism as a revolutionary supposition that for me is intuitively inviting. Instinctually inviting because I accept supranaturalism as a intuitive push-up idea from transgenerational feedback into consciousness. I conceive of supranaturalism as having the potential of defining and being a seminal naturalistic transvaluative notion. Transvaluation implies transposing, varying, clarifying, deviating, and defying conventional standards. In this case an inversion from the normative standards of supernaturalism. I view super-naturalism as an amorphous concept having little context. I envision supra-naturalism as strategically conceptualizing and contextualizing a naturalistically based precept. I understand supra-natural as a transformational portmanteau precept (supra + nature). I ask, “Can supranaturalism be that proto-naturalistic proposition encompassing an activation and an energizing of our spiritual nature?” 

I postulate and entertain the fact that all that exists are properties of subatomic particles that for 13.7 bya have been mathematically reorganizing themselves through Nature’s 4 fundamental forces. They are not supernatural products, but are animate and inanimate handiworks of Nature. I attest that supranaturalism is an anti-supernaturalistic presupposition reconciling the spiritual with the natural. It embraces humans as a physical, biological, and spiritual species, and prodigiously allows us to build upon/with our nature. It encourages us to be the homos sapiens (wise men) we are capable of being. Supranaturalism accepts, trusts, respects, and cooperates with Nature, instead of denying, demonizing, or controlling it. I visualize, conceptualize, and contextualize a naturalistic worldview having equalizing and balancing forces within Nature, human nature, and our own nature. The ramifications of endorsing supranaturalism suggests that the potential exists for us to substantially satisfy our Nature based needs, and that we can build upon/with our natural inheritance and have some end-result times that include supra-meaning, supra-balance, and supra-health.

In my journey I came to ask, “Is it time to demythologize the entire dualistic concept of supernaturalism?“ Why should humanity endure and be burdened with the divisiveness this supposition entails? I asseverate that the man-made concept of supernaturalism as promulgated by most religions is a nonfactor and is unfounded —>  there is NO need for it to exist. What happens if a monistic concept like supra-naturalism is embraced? Even during my “religious days”  I was skeptical of supernaturalism. It is a man-made contra-rational concept! If studied, scrutinized, and analyzed it invariably doesn’t stand up under the microscopic focus of intuitive feedback and rational thinking. I strongly maintain there is not a scintilla of scientifically fact-based evidence that supports a supernatural or a superbeing existence. Supernaturalism is the absurdity of saying, “there is absolutely no way I can scientifically and logically defend my belief system but I stand by and defend it anyway.” Isn’t it kind of absurd to defend the indefensible? Over the years “religious” acquaintances of mine have defended their supernatural beliefs by saying, “I know that I know, that I know that I know.” What a goddamn egotistical superiority defense of fatuity. Their use of “I know” is basically a sandbagging defense mechanism since there is no way to logically and factually defend such supernatural nonsense. Isn’t it futile to try to make sense out of nonsense? My standard answer for those who believe in virgin births, corpses rising from the dead, saints and sinners, devils and hellfire is, “I know, that you know, that there is no way deep-down you can possibly believe that bullshit.” I know, that you know, that anyone who allows themselves to critically think can be that goddamn stupid. I emphatically state, “Why supernatural when Nature is so amazing!” Why a superbeing when this dualistic and divisive generalization has brought so much cruelty, misery, pain, fighting, and disunity to the human world.

Super vs Supra – I consider it essential to point out that super and supra are frequently used interchangeably. However, I advance the notion and take a stance that for spirituality, these two prefixes have extraordinary differences:

• Super means above, over, or superior. Super consists of something that is paranormal (i. e. abnormal). Supernatural is a characterization of being superior to Nature, and in the process separates the spirit from the body. Supernaturalism is an erroneous bastardization of Nature and is outside of the natural order of things (outside the natural world). Supernatural is a metaphysical concept that allows for functioning outside and beyond immutable naturalistic forces. Supernaturalism is a surpassing of Nature’s  normal rhythmic patterns, order, forces, harmony, and balance. That makes supernatural preternatural: 1.) it exists outside of Nature, 2.) it exceeds Nature, 3.) it can’t be explained using natural concepts, and 4.) it can’t be studied by science. The end result makes supernatural detached from both Nature and human nature. I want to indicate that supernatural contains the profoundly absurd and undefinable concepts of a holy spirit (holy ghost) and the existence of a fictional soul.
• Supra embodies the words upon and with: 1.) upon comes from the Latin uperi (to extend). What if there is a supranatural that is part of the rhythmic patterns, order, forces, harmony, and balance of the natural world but can be extended and enhanced by being built upon it, and 2.) is with Nature (not against) making supra within the natural patterns, order, harmony, and balance of the natural world, and this includes immutable natural forces. Supra is an inviting concept when contextually referred to as being upon/with Nature, for it then allows us to work with Nature, and it can be studied by science. Human beings are part of Nature; not above it. I propose supranaturalism as a conceptualization that includes human epigenetic activation —> switch-on and build upon/with our genetic make-up. I view supranaturalism as encompassing energetics ––> building upon/with Nature increases our natural energy. Conceptualizing and contextualizing the supra prefix in concordance with epigenetics and energetics indicates extraordinary (supra-ordinary) and evolutionary self-growth (supra-growth) can take place for humans upon/with Nature.
• 

Naturalistic theism is a proposal I view as one possible manner to overcome some of the body and spirit split. Naturalistic theism has something to do with Nature, but also views a God as having some involvement in/with Nature.  This view allows God (for me Truth) to be the author of Nature and even be embedded within Nature. Naturalistic theism incorporates a discussion that progresses theism from a dualistic to a more monistic view. I postulate theistic naturalism leans towards being a monistic concept because the spiritual and the physical are reconceptualized, recontextualized, and systematized as having a shared fundamental nature.

Rene Descartes separated the mind (res cogitans) from the body (res extensa). This mind and body dualism evolved into a spirit and body separation. Fearn argued, “this Cartesian Bargain opened up a chasm in the psyche that has led to the widespread assumption today that if there is a spiritual realm, it is separate from the physical universe.” (2005) I postulate that when the physical and the spiritual are separate, it is only one small step for the spiritual to become super, and one additional small step for super to become super-natural. The dualistic split of the body and the spirit has the spiritual and the physical composed of fundamentally different natures. When body and spirit are separated: 1.) science becomes the study in a physical natural world, and 2.) religion becomes the belief in a metaphysical supernatural world. Science asks questions to find answers <–> religion proclaims to have the answers. Physics involves Nature, the natural realm, and this includes our body. Metaphysics involves the supernatural, the non-natural realm, and this excludes the body. Metaphysics comes from the Greek meaning “after natural things,” and this makes for a spiritual realm that is beyond Nature. Supernaturalism amounts to a metaphysical dualistic concept. Ironically, this body and spirit split in many ways has led to an emphasis on the physical over the spiritual for both the worlds of science and religion –—> never doubt a material prominence, a desire for money, and a thirst for power by every religion. Schweitzer maintains that, “the disastrous feature of our civilization is that it is far more developed materially than spiritually. Its balance is disturbed.” (1949).

Naturalistic theism is a proposal I view as one possible manner to overcome some of this body and spirit split.  For me,  naturalistic theism has something to do with Nature, but also views a God as having some involvement in/with Nature.  This view allows God (for me Truth) to be the author of Nature and even be embedded within Nature. Naturalistic theism incorporates a discussion that progresses theism from a dualistic to a more monistic view. I postulate theistic naturalism leans towards being a monistic concept because the spiritual and the physical are reconceptualized, recontextualized, and systematized as having a shared fundamental nature.  What do you think?