How to study the supernatural?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There, I fixed it for you (making it consistent with my response).

And the answer is: No, for God is outside the competence and purview of scientific inquiry.

I mean, in terms of scientific inquiry, I'd class God under the blanket umbrella of supernatural as pertaining to anything outside of nature.

 

[NBB]

So those scientists that are Christian, can they test for the supernatural then? Are they allowed to do so? And if so, how?

You can only test God, if you have His spirit, and is 'spiritually discerned' no scientific instruments are involved.
There is probably a science though like maybe something changes in the body if you are with His presence of something. Or idk what else.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You can only test God, if you have His spirit, and is 'spiritually discerned' no scientific instruments are involved.

So no, the supernatural can't be tested then.

 

[NBB]

So no, the supernatural can't be tested then.

There are plenty of miraculous healings backed up by doctor documentation. You won't see that on the news though.
Also millions of ruined people, family violence drugs sickness etc that turned up to healthy lives.
Also millions of testimonies of people who said Jesus changes their lives or experienced the Holy spirit.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There are plenty of miraculous healings backed up by doctor documentation. You won't see that on the news though.
Also millions of ruined people, family violence drugs sickness etc that turned up to healthy lives.
Also millions of testimonies of people who said Jesus changes their lives or experienced the Holy spirit.

But only the 'miraculous healings', if they are miraculous type like "This man who had lost his foot regrew a new one overnight" and not the "This type of cancer has a high remission rate" types of healing, can be called evidence of the supernatural though.

The latter two definitely not since that can be as much down to family intervention, good social care or their own personal choices, and personal testimony is not good evidence of anything for anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can only test God, if you have His spirit,

So no, the supernatural can't be tested then.

I pray you're not saying what it looks like you're saying.

 

[AV1611VET]

But if AV knows someone who can 'control' for God, maybe AV can introduce us to that particular scientist.

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

Source: The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I pray you're not saying what it looks like you're saying.

Why did you cut out the rest of his sentence that read: "and is 'spiritually discerned' no scientific instruments are involved." which makes what I said in response clear and earnest to read to anyone with eyes and good sense?

Did you do so on purpose to make me out to say something that I very clearly didn't say, or was it just a slip of the finger? I pray it was very much the latter though I honestly doubt it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is something that repeatedly pops up every time someone goes on a rant against science not doing what they want science to do:

SCIENCE ONLY STUDIES NATURE!

Of course science studies nature. It's what science does.

But if you want science to study the supernatural, that which is supposed to exist beyond and outside nature, you have to actually give it something to work with.

So I ask you: how exactly CAN science study the supernatural? What methods, what tests?

Studying the supernatural is easy, all you have to do is believe and you’ll receive the Holy Spirit and be able to see the supernatural at work all the time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Studying the supernatural is easy, all you have to do is believe and you’ll receive the Holy Spirit and be able to see the supernatural at work all the time.

That's really not an answer at all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

Source: The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience

And once again, AV shows that he doesn't know what allegory is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Studying the supernatural is easy, all you have to do is believe and you’ll receive the Holy Spirit and be able to see the supernatural at work all the time.

Then it has been tested and it has failed to show. Let's think about your causal chain:

1. All you have to do is believe
2. You'll receive the Holy Spirt (This is apparently a Chrstian-only version)
3. You'll see the supernatural at work all the time.

I know many believers (including once myself. Do they all get the HS and see the supernatural all the time? I don't know.

As for myself. I believed. I was told I received the HS, but didn't feel it. I never saw the supernatural at work.

I am not alone among those who believed and didn't see the supernatural at work, so...


either you method is horribly flawed, or either the HS and/or other supernatural things don't exist. Would you care to rethink/restate your method?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Probably since the beginning of human history people have imagined a boundary between the natural and the supernatural. Over the centuries that boundary has shifted to include more in the "natural" as we gained knowledge of the universe. Is there a limit to what can be known?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why did you cut out the rest of his sentence that read: "and is 'spiritually discerned' no scientific instruments are involved." which makes what I said in response clear and earnest to read to anyone with eyes and good sense?

I didn't know which side of that comma you were addressing.

Did you do so on purpose to make me out to say something that I very clearly didn't say,

Absolutely not.

... or was it just a slip of the finger?

No.

I pray it was very much the latter though I honestly doubt it.

I'm glad I'm wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I didn't know which side of that comma you were addressing.

So I can count context next to allegory as something you don't know how to read then. Good to know. Next time, don't pretend to immediately know what someone else is saying if you don't understand.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

Source: The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience

Right. And Hawking was question begging. Personally, I'd listen more to other astrophysicists. Hawking was interesting, but his view was/is just one view among many. No one HAS to sign on with Hawking alone and chase unerringly with the expectation that an "ultimate theory" can, or will, necessarily be found. In fact, I posit that no one who truly works in science would.

My reference: Lee Smolin - The Trouble with Physics (2006). That, and the Bible.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I mean, in terms of scientific inquiry, I'd class God under the blanket umbrella of supernatural as pertaining to anything outside of nature.

Which is what I said:

The only thing supernatural is God. ... [T]here is only God and everything he makes. And everything he makes is entirely natural, including things like angels. ... Only God ‘exists beyond and outside nature’—necessarily, as its Creator.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which is what I said:

And I also asked: So do you know of a way to study and/or test the supernatural then?

But you never answered it.

Nope! I'm dumb! You did answer it. My apologies. That was the answer.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Right. And Hawking was question begging. Personally, I'd listen more to other astrophysicists. Hawking was interesting, but his view was/is just one view among many. No one HAS to sign on with Hawking alone and chase unerringly with the expectation that an "ultimate theory" can, or will, necessarily be found. In fact, I posit that no one who truly works in science would.

Agreed.

My reference: Lee Smolin - The Trouble with Physics (2006). That, and the Bible.

A good book (the first one, I haven't read the second), but the title should have been more like "The Trouble with Fundamental Theoretical Physics."

 

[AV1611VET]

Next time, don't pretend to immediately know what someone else is saying if you don't understand.

In any event, I'm glad my prayer was answered to my satisfaction.

So you can arc & spark about it all you want.

I was wrong.

And I'm glad.