But regardless of whatever might be printed in a dictionary, the fact of the matter is that there are no known supernatural events, and there is no credible explanation (and certainly not from you) as to how any such supernatural event could possibly ever occur. So if any dictionaries are printing definitions which appear to imply (as you are claiming) that the supernatural events are actually real, then your dictionaries are "not fit for purpose" and should be chucked in the bin - do not rely on dictionaries to decide what is scientifically credible and what is not scientifically credible in the 21st century.
Of course there are no known supernatural events or beings, I've been saying that from the beginning. You are arguing a point never made.
And, the fact that the supernatural does not exist is exactly why the dictionary uses "attributed". When we say something about something, it is an attribution.
"IanS is swell fella" is an attribution, even though the meaning is clearly "IanS is a swell fella". Having said that, someone could say "Nonsense, IanS does not exist! IanS is what this person(? another attribution) is called on the internet." Someone could also claim that this is the internet, IanS are just pixels on a screen, not a person at all. While all literally true, certainly the phrase "IanS is a swell fella" is pretty specific and generally understood, the other arguments being nonsensical attempts to gainsay.
All your attribution dancing is likewise. "Supernatural means beyond science" is understood. Yes, they are also just pixels on a screen. Yes, Supernatural is just a word used to describe an attribute of something. It's logical nonsense, though "The supernatural is not necessarily supernatural." undoes meaning and communication.
The supernatural does not exist. When science investigates supernatural claims, guess what will happen? 1) They discover it has mundane causes (In which case, the attribution "supernatural" would now be incorrect; or 2) they find no understood cause, which means it *IS* supernatural (beyond science).
In point of fact, IanS, the reason the word supernatural exists is to identify things that are believed to be beyond science. Science has been able to say "No, some of those things are well within science" At the instant this becomes true, 'supernatural' no longer applies, is no longer attributed to the claim, as it is now within science.
[Here's the part that will engender spittle filled responses] Others Science hasn't been able to touch, which puts them squarely into supernatural, beyond science. It also puts these things squarely into fiction, as those remaining supernatural events can't even be verified.
So, clearly the supernatural does not exist (still). Any supernatural claims are either FALSE or FICTION. Like the supernatural, fiction is outside of science. Of course, if any of the remaining supernatural claims were true, then they are still beyond science, by definition.
Of course, I may not have typed the above, since it is attributed to me.
