What exactly is the difference between the “supernatural” and the “paranormal”? Definitions-wise the two seem to be synonyms, but can a substantial distinction between the two be made in terms of usage or context? Even if the two terms are six one way and 50% of a dozen the other, did they follow separate paths into the English language?
I understand “supernatural” to be a subset of “paranormal.” In otherwords, all that is supernatural is paranormal, but all that is paranormal is not necessarialy supernatural.
Example:
At present, the possibility of our having been visited by extra-terrestrial entities is considered to be within the realm of the paranormal (literally, “outside the normal”). Should conslusive proof arise of such visitation, it would not require a complete re-evaluation of the laws of nature, just a re-evaluation of what is “normal.”
Contrarily, the possibility that Jesus could heal the sick and raise the dead is considered to be within the realm of the supernatural (literally “above nature”). Should conclusivne proof arise of such events, it would requrie a complete re-evaluation of the laws of nature, as our current laws simply do not allow for such events to take place.
That’s how I think about it anyway. 
In re-reading that, I realize that it sounds from the examples like paranormal is a subset of supernatural, but that isn’t how I think about it. I think maybe I just chose two bad examples. I don’t like how I said “just a re-evaluation” for the paranormal example and “a complete re-evaluation” for the supernatural example. Oh well. It’s early.
Paranormal is a metanym or hypernym to supernatural. Which means it is a more general term that includes the latter. Where paranormal is anything that seems outside our current belief of what is, supernatural is specifically outside our understanding of physics. Someone previously brought up extraterrestrials. There is no reason why from a biological standpoint there couldnt be carbon based beings living elsewhere in the galaxy, we can be more specifically sure that they probably (not definately) can read minds.
Well, at least KidCharlemagne and I are in agreement, though with different terminology.
:giggles:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread with 4 posts on it contain the “someone previously brought up” circumlocution. I’m really tickled. Thanks, KidCharlemagne. Welcome to the boards, by the way.
Great, so putting it in formal logic terms, supernaturalness implies paranormality – if it’s supernatural then it’s paranormal and if it’s not paranormal then it’s not supernatural – but not necessarily vice-versa.
Or for you discrete math fans,
A: Supernatural
B: Paranormal
A -> B is true
_ _
B -> A is true
B -> A is false
Thanks for the elucidation folks!
That should read ~B -> ~A – not B implies not A.
OK, one set-theory analysis, one linguistic, and one logical. Anybody want to bring a new field of endeavor into this discussion?
Oh, and I was rethinking my previous examples. Let me try this:
Start with a situation where we have obtained conclusive proof of two paranormal events:
A. Life outside our little biosphere (a non-supernatural event)
B. The resurrection of the dead (a supernatural event)
Reason both are paranormal: they both lie outside the commonly-understood of the boundaries of everyday existence.
Reason A is not supernatural: while paranormal, it does not require redefining the laws of nature as we understand them.
Reason B is supernatural: in addition to meeting the more general criteria of the paranormal, it does require redefining the laws of nature as we understand them.
I’m happier with the wording on those than my first try. If it matters, I first started thinking about this distinction when I began trying to define the difference between “fantasy” and “science fiction,” but that’s a different story.