How can we scientifically test the supernatural?

[mindlight]

I have the following hypothesis: God's intervention is actively required for healthy plant growth.

Can anyone describe a method by which this hypothesis could be tested scientifically?

Plants are designed to thrive in certain conditions. Since God determines and sustains those conditions all plants grow by Gods grace.

But if God sends a global flood or allows various natural catastrophes or by the withdrawal of his grace manmade ones like a nuclear winter for example then that is not good for plant growth. So a lack of angry intervention and a prolonged possibility of growth and favour might be evidence of Gods supernatural grace.

But such interventions are never about the plants. The plants are only the beneficiaries of a decision to bless and the victims of a decision to curse.

A better hypothesis would be to ask whether it was naturally possible to build a seed from inanimate matter. Since naturally this is impossible then that first seed must be the result of a supernatural intervention.

 

[pitabread]

But such interventions are never about the plants.

But how would you know? That's the point of the hypothesis in the OP. Can such a claim be tested?

A better hypothesis would be to ask whether it was naturally possible to build a seed from inanimate matter.

Plants already do this via metabolism and reproduction. It's how living things work.

 

[Bobber]

The supernatural though, could be tested. For example, if the waters of the ocean split, in a way that couldnt be caused by any natural phenomena that we are aware of, then one could argue that the source was supernatural.

Wouldn't make any difference to those who choose to be cynics forever. They'd probably just say it was caused by some unseen vortex or a break in the magnetic field. Anything but God for many of them have already decided they're not going to give him the time of day.

 

[mindlight]

But how would you know? That's the point of the hypothesis in the OP. Can such a claim be tested?

Disease, malformation, decay, slow rates of growth are signs of lack of favour and health, normal appearance, thriving, accelerated growth are signs of favour. But as i said it is not about the plant but the human religious history within which it grows.

Plants already do this via metabolism and reproduction. It's how living things work.

No plant ever created the first ever example of a seed of its kind. It merely follows its flexible and adaptive biological design having been created. Evolution requires abiogenesis first. To explain how that plant acquired the design it has implicit in its seed and revealed in its full maturity is go back to the creation of that first seed. Since it naturally impossible to create a seed from rocks and chemicals it must have been a supernatural cause that began the biological cycle of birth, growth and reproduction in the first place.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wouldn't make any difference to those who choose to be cynics

We could test that hypothesis, if only the waters would part miraculously.

 

[salt-n-light]

I'm deliberating leaving it open ended so others can use their own criteria.

How would people be able to give a proper methods if there’s no clear definitions to work with?

If that were such a case that would be an unfalsifiable proposition. Thus, it wouldn't be testable to begin with.

Precisely. “Inconclusive” is also a conclusion.I don’t know scientific terminologies. It just identifies that there is not enough data to make a substantial case. That would mean either except it, or create another hypothesis that can give you a more conclusive result.

Like for example, cloning, if we are able to clone humans. They haven’t clone humans, but because they have clone sheep, and maybe sheep have similar organs or reproductive systems like humans, that builds a better case for being able to clone humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

We could test that hypothesis, if only the waters would part miraculously.

I disagree.

What would you test? the dry ground? the surface tension of the walls?

And who would do it?

Would you be brave enough to walk around between the two walls of water?

By the time scientists decided what to do ... (if anything) ... the Rapture would be long past.

And what test exactly would a scientist use to conclude supernatural activity? viz-a-viz alien activity?

Science is myopic.

 

[The Barbarian]

Certain folks on this forum have been complaining about science's scope being limited to the natural.

It's just an intrinsic limitation of science. By its very methodology, science can't test the supernatural.

I started this thread to see if anyone can proffer how we could include God in the mix.

I get the point.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's just an intrinsic limitation of science. By its very methodology, science can't test the supernatural.

They'd all die of old age ... or kill each other ... trying to decide what to do and how to get the funding.

One of their biggest obstacles, in my opinion, would be trying to come up with a test that would rule out all explanations and conclude it was supernatural.

They've denied and ridiculed the supernatural for so long, they wouldn't know it if Christians disappeared right in front of them.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, does God produce sunlight?



Can it be tested with respect to the hypothesis listed in the OP?

If the claimant believes that God produces sunlight, then yes, hypothetically, for your test, God produces sunlight.

The difficulty comes in that, to base a hypothesis around God, you are also responsible for defining the God that you want to test.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's just an intrinsic limitation of science. By its very methodology, science can't test the supernatural.

If the supernatural has observable effects on the natural world, then I don't see why it can't be tested.

I mean if some guy says he can levitate a chair with his mind, we could verify whether it happened or not. We might not be able to determine whether it was done by his mind, a ghost, an angel, the gods themselves, or qi power, but we could verify that there was actually a real effect that requires an explanation.

 

[The Barbarian]

True enough. At one time, lightning was thought to be God, striking at His enemies.

Real phenomenon, but since it "misses" far more often than it hits anyone, one would have to conclude that God's accuracy leaves much to be desired.

On the other hand, a useful theory of supernatural effect was proposed by some California coastal tribes. They hypothesized that ornery spirits interfered with food being boiled. Further, they said, the concentration of ornery spirits increases with altitude.

Which nicely predicts the fact that boiling food at high elevations takes longer to cook the food properly.

 

[juvenissun]

I have the following hypothesis: God's intervention is actively required for healthy plant growth.

Can anyone describe a method by which this hypothesis could be tested scientifically?

Let one theist and one atheist grow a same plant under same conditions. Then see how would the plants grow differently.

Science can test anything, supernatural or not. But science usually does not get a good answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

At one time, lightning was thought to be God, striking at His enemies.

Does all fire come from matches?

 

[pitabread]

How would people be able to give a proper methods if there’s no clear definitions to work with?

People can bring their own definitions to the table. I don't want to pre-define everything in the event people want to challenge those definitions.

Precisely. “Inconclusive” is also a conclusion.I don’t know scientific terminologies. It just identifies that there is not enough data to make a substantial case. That would mean either except it, or create another hypothesis that can give you a more conclusive result.

Inconclusive would imply that the hypothesis is testable but the result of the test doesn't yield a clear conclusion.

A premise that is unfalsifiable cannot be a valid hypothesis and therefore cannot be tested.

 

[pitabread]

Disease, malformation, decay, slow rates of growth are signs of lack of favour and health, normal appearance, thriving, accelerated growth are signs of favour. But as i said it is not about the plant but the human religious history within which it grows.

No plant ever created the first ever example of a seed of its kind. It merely follows its flexible and adaptive biological design having been created. Evolution requires abiogenesis first. To explain how that plant acquired the design it has implicit in its seed and revealed in its full maturity is go back to the creation of that first seed. Since it naturally impossible to create a seed from rocks and chemicals it must have been a supernatural cause that began the biological cycle of birth, growth and reproduction in the first place.

None of this is within the scope of the hypothesis listed in the OP. This isn't about the first ever plant or the origin of life or whether god can flood the planet or shoot lightning from the sky or anything like that.

It's simply that if I have a potted plant sitting in front of me, can I scientifically test if god is directly intervening in providing healthy plant growth. That's it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have the following hypothesis: God's intervention is actively required for healthy plant growth.

Can anyone describe a method by which this hypothesis could be tested scientifically?

Build a machine that can do this:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

 

[Kylie]

Uproot a healthy plant and see if it continues to grow.

If so, then chances are God is intervening.

If it dies, then chances are God is no longer intervening.

Numbers 17:8 And it came to pass, that on the morrow Moses went into the tabernacle of witness; and, behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds.

So God is soil?

 

[Job 33:6]

None of this is within the scope of the hypothesis listed in the OP. This isn't about the first ever plant or the origin of life or whether god can flood the planet or shoot lightning from the sky or anything like that.

It's simply that if I have a potted plant sitting in front of me, can I scientifically test if god is directly intervening in providing healthy plant growth. That's it.

Please provide a definition for God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please provide a definition for God.

The self-existent transcendent Creator of the universe.