The Science of Science; or, the true Scientology

Can science study the supernatural (et al)?

  • Yes

  • No

  • No, by the definition of 'science'.

  • No, by the definition of 'supernatural'.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I voted: No, by the definition of 'supernatural'.

I look at reality like it is a three-story building.

The first story is the subnatural realm ... Santa Claus, tooth fairy, Hansel & Gretel.

The second story is the natural realm ... pepperoni & anchovy pizza.

The third story is the supernatural realm ... God, angels, Heaven & Hell.

Science is too myopic to be able to study the third floor.
 
Upvote 0

Blackwater Babe

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2011
7,093
246
United States
✟8,940.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Libertarian
I voted: No, by the definition of 'supernatural'.

I look at reality like it is a three-story building.

The first story is the subnatural realm ... Santa Claus, tooth fairy, Hansel & Gretel.

The second story is the natural realm ... pepperoni & anchovy pizza.

The third story is the supernatural realm ... God, angels, Heaven & Hell.

Science is too myopic to be able to study the third floor.
stop-saying-words.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I voted: No, by the definition of 'supernatural'.

I look at reality like it is a three-story building.

The first story is the subnatural realm ... Santa Claus, tooth fairy, Hansel & Gretel.

The second story is the natural realm ... pepperoni & anchovy pizza.

The third story is the supernatural realm ... God, angels, Heaven & Hell.

Science is too myopic to be able to study the third floor.
Three exhaustive and exclusive categories into which all things can be put. OK.

What are the differences between subnatural, natural, and supernatural? And, given a particular object, how do you determine which category it's in?

That is, why are angels supernatural instead of natural? What is pizza natural instead of subnatural? Why is Santa Claus subnatural instead of supernatural?
 
Upvote 0

Blackwater Babe

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2011
7,093
246
United States
✟8,940.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Libertarian
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Three exhaustive and exclusive categories into which all things can be put. OK.

What are the differences between subnatural, natural, and supernatural? And, given a particular object, how do you determine which category it's in?

That is, why are angels supernatural instead of natural? What is pizza natural instead of subnatural? Why is Santa Claus subnatural instead of supernatural?
Good questions.

At first, I put Leprechauns as an example of subnatural, but I believe Leprechauns really existed at one time as a manifestation of demons.

The difference between the supernatural, natural and subnatural, is that the supernatural can interface with the natural; the natural cannot interface with the supernatural; and the subnatural simply doesn't exist, except as software.

Why I consider angels supernatural and Santa Claus subnatural gets into the area of my Boolean standards.

Which brings up a good point in itself:

I consider the Bible to be a supernatural manifestation here in the natural world.

The corpus, of course, not the footnotes.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
People claim that the supernatural has physical manifestations, so I voted "yes".

For example, some people believed that Zeus was responsible for throwing lightning bolts to the Earth. We later found that Zeus was not responsible, but rather there were natural processes. So not only can science assess supernatural claims, it can test them and falsify them.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 6, 2012
796
7
✟1,168.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I've used the example of ghosts in my responses, (if ghosts existed, it seems you must accept them as natural, not supernatural entities); in case it came across as such, it's not meant to be an objection to the position.


There seem to be competing definitions at work, depending on who you talk to:

Ghosts and spirits are clear examples of the supernatural. But if they exist, scientific methodology could test them. Thus, the supernatural can be tested by science. The wrinkle is that by allowing the supernatural to be tested by science, that opens the door to an spiracle test for prayer and God, which upsets some people - they prefer that God remain untested, for fear he should fail...

Nope, #1, Free Will, God ain't breakin' it, #2 Science can only observe material and prove that Immaterial Exists, but it cannot observe it Except by Experience just like you cannot observe someones pain scientifically.

you cannot scientifically test the feelings of a sexual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], yet it exists, same with ghosts.

The supernatural is defined as that which is not natural, and that which is natural is that which can be scrutinised by science. Thus, by definition, the supernatural falls outside scientific purview. The wrinkle is that we have to then consider both ghosts and God to be 'natural', which is upsetting to some.

So it depends on whether you take a bottom-up or a top-down approach, I think.

Nope, Supernatural means Beyond and Greater than nature. not unnatural or less that natural. Supernatural is beyond nature, for example, Creation is Supernatural, yet when observed it is actually natural, however due to the fact that we never witnessed it, it is a miracluous event.

Another example is Substance Dualism, it is impossible to be strictly material, we are Spirits controlling bodies, now at first this was supernatural to me, however after observing and testing more and more it has become natural to me.



They might also genuinely exist. In either case, it seems your answer is 'yes', so I'm confused why you voted 'no' :p.


Well, that begs the question of just what constitutes the natural world. If ghosts (â la Casper) exist, would they be natural or supernatural?

Actually less than natural since they are just like us, with no bodies. however since they can do what man cannot still Supernatural, hard to explain.


So ghosts are natural?

But in general yes, as we are Ghosts/Spirits with bodies.

What if it had a manifest appearance in the world, if it could interfere with natural things,

It does, look at yourself, you free will is an Immaterial Property causing material events, something you don't realize everyday.

When you look at someone, you just look at their flesh, not the actual being, when you look closely you realize that they aren't their teeth, their eyeballs, pink flesh(the brain), if Immaterial isn't real then when you communicate with someone you are talking to just flesh, basically just talking to yourself, like talking to the wall.

Indeed. But you said "If the supernatural adhered to objective rules, than those rules could be described by science" - my point is that, if a particle obeys objective rules but cannot be observed by science, then science can't, in fact, describe those rules. Would such a particle be natural, or supernatural?

How? That's like trying to scientifically describe the love I have for The Father, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit, that's an impossibility as Love is an Immaterial property, Supernatural, is Immaterial. The Only way you can Observe Supernatural is when Supernatural interacts with the nature we see(material) causing a miracle, like The Picture in my Signature, that Supernatural is observable.



Another question: If God exists, would he be natural or supernatural?

He created nature out of nothing, lesser cannot produce greater, therefore Supernatural.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jun 6, 2012
796
7
✟1,168.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I voted for all four answers. Science can't study what has no observable manifestation, but science can study delusions, hallucinations, misconceptions, frauds and fantasies. And manifestations of the supernatural surely fall into one or more of those categories.

:wave:

Actually if "naturalism" were true there would be no such things as hallucinations, misconceptions, frauds, or fantasies as those are Immaterial properties, so if you say those exist, then God has to exist. if you then deny the existence of those properties then you yourself are deluded.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 6, 2012
796
7
✟1,168.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
People claim that the supernatural has physical manifestations, so I voted "yes".

For example, some people believed that Zeus was responsible for throwing lightning bolts to the Earth. We later found that Zeus was not responsible, but rather there were natural processes. So not only can science assess supernatural claims, it can test them and falsify them.

And Natural processes(processes void of Will) were all started by a Prime Mover(First Uncaused Cause) and are further effected/changed by beings with will.(us)

That Prime Mover is? The Infinite God Almighty Himself, Jesus Christ who I have a picture of in my signature.

you guys(w_child, loudmouth, Gracchus) don't want none of me with science because you know I exceed in Science and prove God(The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit) exists.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
And Natural processes(processes void of Will) were all started by a Prime Mover(First Uncaused Cause) and are further effected/changed by beings with will.(us)
lolwut.jpg


That Prime Mover is? The Infinite God Almighty Himself, Jesus Christ who I have a picture of in my signature.
Oh, the shroud of Turin, the piece of fabric that dates to the medieval period? Unless Jesus died 500 years ago, you've been fooled by a fraud.

you guys(w_child, loudmouth, Gracchus) don't want none of me with science because you know I exceed in Science and prove God(The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit) exists.
Yes, that's why we don't listen to you.

Careful, guys, he can't read our minds if we wear our tin hats!
 
Upvote 0
Jun 6, 2012
796
7
✟1,168.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

See? Already you're jumping with nervousness, instead of a simple calm reply actually refuting something, you prove by not understanding what was such simple science that you are void of scientific knowledge and I have feelings that you are conning us by calling yourself a physicist, lets explain:

The Past is Factually Finite, Something cannot have always existed in the past as it would never get to the present, therefore Natural Processes have not always existed and started to exist, there is a Prime Mover to everything that exist, including Natural Processes, The Prime Mover is The First Uncaused Cause, and The First Uncaused Cause is proven to be a Mind, which is God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)

So natural processes aren't really natural as The Prime Move(Trinity of God) started it, like dominos.

Also humans, those with will can disturb natural processes and change things. all this is Scientific Facts.



Oh, the shroud of Turin, the piece of fabric that dates to the medieval period? Unless Jesus died 500 years ago, you've been fooled by a fraud.

Actually All Scientific Data Proves otherwise. the carbon testing is false.(Burst of UV Light from Jesus Christ body Changed The fiber)

Scientists Determine The Shroud of Turin is Not a Fake - Blogcritics Sci/Tech

The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus' Resurrection

Also the carbon testing result is Automatically false due to all the other substantial evidence.

your argument is the equivalent of having clear video proof that oj simpson is the killer, however since the tape isn't from 1994 it is therefore according to you false.

Yes, that's why we don't listen to you.

Because you know you're going to lose again, I beat you in all realms of Science, History, Philosophy, and Logic and I want to do it again, you didn't think I'd be one of the responders to your thread, but now you know you're going to lose because The Holy Spirit with me.

Careful, guys, he can't read our minds if we wear our tin hats!

Everytime I beat you in debates, you never end it by admitting you lost. I beat you by disproving "naturalism", "materialism", "macro-evolution", "nothing causing something", your slanderous attacks against The Word of God/The Bible(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), in Quantum Mechanics, in Astronomy, and on and on.

This is like the tortoise and the hare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhC7-De9_w0

P.S. Notice you once again fail to refute anything. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟17,952.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
...

Actually All Scientific Data Proves otherwise. the carbon testing is false.(Burst of UV Light from Jesus Christ body Changed The fiber)

...
What you've written here is contradictory.

An advice, don't go around proclaiming you've "won" the debate or something like that, you'll only upset people and make yourself look bad.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 6, 2012
796
7
✟1,168.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What you've written here is contradictory.

How is it contradictory? Scientific Fact is that The Shroud was caused by a Burst of UV light By Jesus Of Nazareth's Body, Making it Supernatural and Proves for a Fact, He is The Christ, He is God Himself, God exists and The Bible is The Objective Truth.

An advice, don't go around proclaiming you've "won" the debate or something like that,

I proclaim victory because, I was victorious.

you'll only upset people

Because it's true, look at how the pharisees got upset. as I kid I used to lose at everything and hated the truth, I know how it feels.

and make yourself look bad.

Why? because I won? If an NBA player won the playoffs, he can boast and celebrate, however I win and debate and proclaim victory yet I look bad. more like you don't like that I won it. I'm not some average joe who you're going to sucker, alot of Brothers in Christ have been lost because of deception, fairy tale myths of "naturalism"/"atheism" were conned to them and unfortunately they didn't have the science to refute it where I not only have the great rebuttals to defend my arguments, but Facts to defend myself, Fellow Brothers in Christ who don't know it and The Word(The Holy Bible).

Notice how I ended this whole topic with one post? This isn't my logic but Science, History, The Bible, Philosophy, Logical and The Holy Spirit working in me that I want other Brothers in Christ to have when defending Jesus Christ(God), that's how easy "atheism" can be refuted and thrown in the trash.

P.S. Actually attempt a rebuttal next time.

Notice that I didn't try to refute anything. I don't throw my pearls before swine.

In other words I win, because you were incapable of refuting me, you refute everyone else, why not me?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
In other words I win, because you were incapable of refuting me, you refute everyone else, why not me?
Because I simply do not care. Your misplaced arrogance is hilarious, but your posts are of insufficient calibre to be worth refuting. AV1611VET, razeontherock, goodbrother, juvenissun, JohnR7, even the guy who believes in a concave Earth, they make for an interesting discussion. With all due respect, you do not.
 
Upvote 0

Blackwater Babe

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2011
7,093
246
United States
✟8,940.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Libertarian
How is it contradictory? Scientific Fact is that The Shroud was caused by a Burst of UV light By Jesus Of Nazareth's Body,
Um, I personally believe that is pretty much how the Shroud image occured, but it is in no way scientific fact
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jun 6, 2012
796
7
✟1,168.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Because I simply do not care. Your misplaced arrogance is hilarious, but your posts are of insufficient calibre to be worth refuting. AV1611VET, razeontherock, goodbrother, juvenissun, JohnR7, even the guy who believes in a concave Earth, they make for an interesting discussion. With all due respect, you do not.

Ok then, please prove how my arrogance is hilarious and are of insufficient calibre to be worth refuting.

In the meanwhile I'll prove why you know I'm proving The Truth:

1, you never beat me in a debate.

2, you slandered The Bible

3, I disproved "macro-evolution"

4, I proved that you're "nothing causing something" is an impossibility and that God can only be The First Uncaused Cause which you had no escape from a lost.

5, I proved Jesus Christ/God is a Scientifically proven Fact.

your turn.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.