Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I wasn't even going to touch on the incredible demerits of academia in relation to "proofs" of the natural, let alone the "supernatural."

Academia has often been wrong but science holds to the standard of letting evidence be the final judge between theories. This is an ongoing process and has worked to an astonishing degree, but nobody thinks we have finished that activity yet. But we DO have some valid conclusions, such as evolution is real, the universe is billions of years in age, as is the earth. The fact that there are some speculative areas we are working on . . . . such as the nature of dark matter, the problem of how to unify gravity with other forces, and so forth . . . doesn't take this real progress away.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Meh. "Physics" includes concepts like multiverse theory, inflation, and dark stuff galore. What *empirically* (in the lab) differentiates God from dark matter or dark energy or a mutliverse?

I think it's a common misconception that physics doesn't dabble in the supernatural, but it actually dabbles in the supernatural all the time. Often it's the "effect" that can observed, but not the cause itself. For instance, QM defines a carrier particle of gravity (graviton) which has never been observed directly, yet it is still considered to be the 'cause' of gravity.

This isn't so much supernatural as it is "eloquently detailed fairy tales, primarily using symbols to represent words and phrases rather than an alphabet." In other words, most of these things are science fiction, not actual supernature, as it were.

Those who entertain multiverse theory, string theory, interdimensional travel, and so on are doing so within the very limited boundaries of physics anyway. It is acceptable fringe, but physics doesn't deal with real issues of supernatural in public academia.

Ghosts*
Poltergeist**
Demons**
Identifying gods/archons/elders/guides
Psychometry
Telekinesis/pyrokinesis/hydrokinesis*
Telepathy*
Reality warping*
Teleportation**
Accelerated healing factor
Human bilocation**
Empathic mimicry**
Magick*
Psionics*
Neurological plasticity


Those are actual "supernatural" phenomena, because according to the standard model, there is no physics that can describe these things - nor can the reproduce them to further study them. This is, of course, publically. Privately, and outside of academia, there is plenty of research into some of the things mentioned above - especially psionics, "kinetics," and "pathos."

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Academia has often been wrong but science holds to the standard of letting evidence be the final judge between theories. This is an ongoing process and has worked to an astonishing degree, but nobody thinks we have finished that activity yet. But we DO have some valid conclusions, such as evolution is real, the universe is billions of years in age, as is the earth. The fact that there are some speculative areas we are working on . . . . such as the nature of dark matter, the problem of how to unify gravity with other forces, and so forth . . . doesn't take this real progress away.

Science is pure; academia is not. In this paradigm, the two are erroneously synonymous. Academia is responsible for what is accepted and acceptable results; science is the simple knowledge thereof.

Academia is the authority that says, for example, evolution is real. I can guarantee there are scientists that don't believe this, and their disbelief shouldn't demerit their achevements and knowledge (although, it often does.) I gave a university seminar about the flavor oscillation of neutrinos before the Standard Model decided to make neutrinos massive. (It wasn't necessarily a breakthrough, the entire idea of a neutrino began with Pauli.)

So, while science may be the working knowledge of the world around and within us, academia determines which of that working knowledge is a usable result. I said this before in a similar thread, but physicists need normalizable results. And, when the result is "right," but is not usable (blows up,) they must determine if the result is renormalizable in order to obtain a usable result.

It isn't the science that is every wrong; science is science. Academia has been, and often is wrong. And, while that is part of the scientific journey (error,) academia makes the decision on what error is, how it can be applied, and any investigation thereafter for the purposes of a usable result - also in the opinion of academia.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Watch making isn't dificult to grasp at all.
Anyone can go and learn to be a watch maker.

It is even easier to be becoming a child of YHWH.

YHWH made everything simple.

Men just hate the truth/ mankind is evil.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

It is even easier to be becoming a child of YHWH.

YHWH made everything simple.

Men just hate the truth/ mankind is evil.

"But, I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:3

 

[Freodin]

I would conditionally agree with you. People definitely do use the "supernatural" card for anything from murder to mundanity. Colloquially, it is certainly hackneyed.

But, the misuse of the concept by people who are ignorant, or lack understanding, should not be used as a platform for dismissal of all things "supernatural." That is my distinction in point. Incidently, the incredulity that comes with supernatural is related to the misuse of the word.

But neither should it be used as a platform for unquestioning acceptance of all things "supernatural". Or including every kind of imaginary concepts into "supernatural".

michael here will be quick to point out that "science" (or, as I think you would call it "the academia") is doing that with things like "dark energy"... that the "real" explanation is something completely different.

And there we are running into a little problem: if you are to accept the possibility of "impossibilities", you cannot make statements like these. You cannot refer back to the "unchangable" nature... of nature or God. You must accept the possibility of a completely different explanation.

I get that. My definition of natural includes what most everyone calls "supernatural," precisely because I have either experience it first hand (and scientifically evaluated it,) or I have extrapolated experiences in a path that compliment phenomenon I have yet to experience.


Hypothetical E.g.: I have seen a real leprechaun, therefore I can extrapolate my experience to entertain the existential reality of a troll.


In other words, if one "impossibility" exists, then all possible "impossibilities" must be entertained to exist.

Or your first "impossibility" does not really exist, and you are extrapolating into a wrong direction.

Physics does not touch on anything related to supernature, because it is outside of their scope. But, since people look to physics as *the* truth, it becomes a danger of the mind how one approaches real phenomenon of what one calls "supernatural." As I said before, there are many people who are not physicists who know exactly what the full domain of "nature" is. And, in my personal case if I waited for academia to determine what phenomenon was befalling me (instead of doing "things" I knew to work for that particular situation,) I would be seriously injured, or dead.

I think you are holding back too much here. You are extrapolating into a wrong direction.

There are multiple examples of people doing things that "academia" had no explanation for, trying things out, and getting seriously injured or dead. And still, people learned from it, and found out "things" to do that "worked" in this particular situation... and now we can do these things without getting seriously injured or dead. Sometimes, this is how knowledge is gained.

And if this "not quite supernatural" of yours is really as constant as the "natural" is... it should pose no problem for you to explain it. Yet you keep back.


edited to add:
"michael here will be quick to point out that "science" (or, as I think you would call it "the academia") is doing that with things like "dark energy"... that the "real" explanation is something completely different."
Lo! He already did. Missed his post, my bad.

 

[Freodin]

Why do you *only* blame religion for that behavior when science is equally guilty of it? Look how many different "explanations" there are for dark matter, or even gravity. Variation in belief, as well as a preference for the metaphysical is not limited exclusively to the domain of religion. It's a human thing.

If you follow what Yrgene Imref just said: how do you exclude all these explanations for dark energy or gravity. You need to accept the possibility of all "impossibilities", don't you?

But that might be the difference between religion and science... when science presents these different "explanations", it is accepted that you will need to find a way to verify or falsify them. This isn't necessarily an easy or quick process... but it is done.

But in religion, presenting an "explanation" is usually considered to be enough.

But of course God *can* be defined *as* nature.

You can define anything as everything. It will not necessarily be consistent.

 

[Michael]

If you follow what Yrgene Imref just said: how do you exclude all these explanations for dark energy or gravity. You need to accept the possibility of all "impossibilities", don't you?

But that might be the difference between religion and science... when science presents these different "explanations", it is accepted that you will need to find a way to verify or falsify them. This isn't necessarily an easy or quick process... but it is done.

But in religion, presenting an "explanation" is usually considered to be enough.

Not necessarily. Even different "Christians" can 'interpret' the Bible differently and theological differences abound, hence all the various different sects. The same is true of the Koran with respect to Islam, and pretty much any other religion too, not to mention the different religions to choose from.

There tends to be a lot of room for dissent in religion as well as in science.

You can define anything as everything. It will not necessarily be consistent.

I would argue that a definition of God as nature is as internally consistent as any other explanation of the universe that I've heard to date. It all depends on how one individually chooses to "interpret" the data.

 

[Michael]

This isn't so much supernatural as it is "eloquently detailed fairy tales, primarily using symbols to represent words and phrases rather than an alphabet." In other words, most of these things are science fiction, not actual supernature, as it were.

Hmm. We seem to be splitting hairs in terms of creating different labels to describe different things which are either difficult or impossible to demonstrate in a lab at the moment. It's six of one, a half dozen of the other from my perspective.

I guess what I'm getting at is that science is often willing to accept and embrace various forms of evidence that come from noting only the 'effect' that something might have on another thing or object rather than being able to empirically demonstrate the "cause" in a purely empirical manner. Atheists tend to insist that only an empirically demonstrated "cause" can count as evidence of God, but that's not how "science" or physics actually works in the real world, particularly at the largest and smallest scales of physics.

Often times in physics the "effect" is all there is to work with in terms of objective observation, and there might be a half dozen or so hypothetical "causes" to choose from which tends to require a lot of personal "interpretation".

I only bring this up because atheists in particular seem to work by two different standards of evidence, one standard that they apply to "science" in a broad sense (effect only), and a completely different standard (empirical "cause") of evidence as it relates exclusively to the topic of God. Either they don't understand how science actually works (which I've seen happen before), or they simply ignore/deny their blatant double standard and their subjective choice as it relates to the topic of God (more common).

 

[Freodin]

Not necessarily. Even different "Christians" can 'interpret' the Bible differently and theological differences abound, hence all the various different sects. The same is true of the Koran with respect to Islam, and pretty much any other religion too, not to mention the different religions to choose from.

There tends to be a lot of room for dissent in religion as well as in science.

There is a lot of dissent in religion, so much is true. And every dissenting group thinks that having given their explanation is enough. There are no means to solve these dissents.

I would argue that a definition of God as nature is as internally consistent as any other explanation of the universe that I've heard to date. It all depends on how one individually chooses to "interpret" the data.

You might remember the conversation we had about "God exists" being an explanation for the fact that "humans report having a relationship with a real living entity."

I would argue that "God as nature" is not internally consistent with this explanation.

You might remember that I said at one time that there is indeed a valid explanation for that: humans are having a relationship with humans... mainly with themselves, and with other humans... and you called that a "different interpretation". But with "God as nature", this would be exactly your interpretation. You cannot even be consistent with your own position.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

But neither should it be used as a platform for unquestioning acceptance of all things "supernatural". Or including every kind of imaginary concepts into "supernatural".

I agree; my caveat is that we should not dismiss the "supernatural" simply because people misuse the word in context. That is also why I gave the anecdote, with focus on the thinking, logic and credentials of the witnesses.

michael here will be quick to point out that "science" (or, as I think you would call it "the academia") is doing that with things like "dark energy"... that the "real" explanation is something completely different.

My specialty is topological field theory, not astronomy or celestial mechanics. I am more concerned with the mathematics.

I have participated in some of the threads about dark matter, errors and ethics in academia, but I was more or less neutral. My general thesis in those threads has always been that QTFT answers the alleged fairy dust of dark matter - that the nature of space as we know it is about nonlocality. But, dark matter and energy is a very incomplete answer at best.

And there we are running into a little problem: if you are to accept the possibility of "impossibilities", you cannot make statements like these. You cannot refer back to the "unchangable" nature... of nature or God. You must accept the possibility of a completely different explanation.

I think you are misunderstanding; my comment on "impossibilities" was related more to [quantum] uncertainty. When I say "impossibilities," especially in quotations, I mean unknown possibilities. That is why if you discover an "impossibility" to exist, you must consider all impossibilities. In other words, once you open up that domain, everything in that domain must be usable, and fair for use.

The unchangeable nature of the Most High God is an axiom.

Or your first "impossibility" does not really exist, and you are extrapolating into a wrong direction.

QM here again, or rather statistical analysis: the fact that an "impossibility" is possible at all means that all presumed "impossibilities" have a probability of being possibe that is greater than zero.

You would need more equally impossible circumstances of data in order to refine that answer and rule out certain impossibilities.

I think you are holding back too much here. You are extrapolating into a wrong direction.

There are multiple examples of people doing things that "academia" had no explanation for, trying things out, and getting seriously injured or dead. And still, people learned from it, and found out "things" to do that "worked" in this particular situation... and now we can do these things without getting seriously injured or dead. Sometimes, this is how knowledge is gained.

And if this "not quite supernatural" of yours is really as constant as the "natural" is... it should pose no problem for you to explain it. Yet you keep back.


edited to add:
"michael here will be quick to point out that "science" (or, as I think you would call it "the academia") is doing that with things like "dark energy"... that the "real" explanation is something completely different."
Lo! He already did. Missed his post, my bad.

Hmm... it seems like you are missing the entire point.

I am talking about demons, poltergeist, and alleged gods seriously injuring, or killing me. Those are things physics categorically does not acknowledge, or study.

If I waited for academic vindication for my experiences, and a remedy for it, then I would have been seriously injured, or dead. Instead, I used techniques I know work - even if they were not academically accredited - to remedy the issue. Those techniques acknowledge the "supernatural," where academia categorically does not.

 

[Freodin]

I agree; my caveat is that we should not dismiss the "supernatural" simply because people misuse the word in context. That is also why I gave the anecdote, with focus on the thinking, logic and credentials of the witnesses.

But that is not how science works. As a scientist, you should know that.

My specialty is topological field theory, not astronomy or celestial mechanics. I am more concerned with the mathematics.

I have participated in some of the threads about dark matter, errors and ethics in academia, but I was more or less neutral. My general thesis in those threads has always been that QTFT answers the alleged fairy dust of dark matter - that the nature of space as we know it is about nonlocality. But, dark matter and energy is a very incomplete answer at best.

Of course it is. But this is accepted.

And this is my whole point: regardless of what "the academia" - scientists, individuals - might do, "science" as a system accepts that answers are incomplete. Theology doesn't.

I think you are misunderstanding; my comment on "impossibilities" was related more to [quantum] uncertainty. When I say "impossibilities," especially in quotations, I mean unknown possibilities. That is why if you discover an "impossibility" to exist, you must consider all impossibilities. In other words, once you open up that domain, everything in that domain must be usable, and fair for use.

No, I understood that quite well. It doesn't change what I wrote at all... I would use the term "impossiblities" (especially in quotations) in exactly the same way.

It doesn't change anything. The question is still: how do you exclude any kind of "unknow possibility"?

The unchangeable nature of the Most High God is an axiom.

In the traditional or modern meaning?

I would deny that it is an axiom in the traditional meaning... it is not concludable or obvious. And in the modern meaning: sure, anything can be an axiom. But it rather defeats the purpose.

QM here again, or rather statistical analysis: the fact that an "impossibility" is possible at all means that all presumed "impossibilities" have a probability of being possibe that is greater than zero.

You would need more equally impossible circumstances of data in order to refine that answer and rule out certain impossibilities.

Correct. But you don't offer any.

Hmm... it seems like you are missing the entire point.

I am talking about demons, poltergeist, and alleged gods seriously injuring, or killing me. Those are things physics categorically does not acknowledge, or study.

If I waited for academic vindication for my experiences, and a remedy for it, then I would have been seriously injured, or dead. Instead, I used techniques I know work - even if they were not academically accredited - to remedy the issue. Those techniques acknowledge the "supernatural," where academia categorically does not.

No, again I got you quite well. But again, you claim to be a scientist. You are part of the "academia". You (should) know how science works.

So where is the difference between scientists subjecting themselves to diseases, poisons, harmful physical conditions... in order to study them, understand them, "control" them... sometimes failing, sometimes getting hurt or dying... and your situation here?

 

[Michael]

There is a lot of dissent in religion, so much is true. And every dissenting group thinks that having given their explanation is enough. There are no means to solve these dissents.

Are there currently any reliable methods to solve dissent in gravity theory, or dark matter theory? I don't even have a clue how one might solve dissent between LCDM proponents and the M-theory 'faithful", let alone any of those positions with EU/PC cosmology theory.

You might remember the conversation we had about "God exists" being an explanation for the fact that "humans report having a relationship with a real living entity."

I would argue that "God as nature" is not internally consistent with this explanation.

This should be entertaining. Keep in mind all I suggested is that the "effect" (not cause) was observable, and the concept of God (as nature) and Panentheism was consistent with that observation, and might "predict' that observation, unlike Pantheism for instance.

You might remember that I said at one time that there is indeed a valid explanation for that: humans are having a relationship with humans... mainly with themselves, and with other humans... and you called that a "different interpretation".

It's certainly a different way to 'interpret' that same set of observations from your perspective, but it doesn't exclude God from the interaction process from mine.

But with "God as nature", this would be exactly your interpretation. You cannot even be consistent with your own position.

I'm not following you. In the sense that I believe that God is within everyone, yes humans do in fact interact with "themselves" and with other humans in the presence of God, but that doesn't *exclude* God from the interaction, that simply *includes* God in the interaction at best case. I fail to see how that is logically inconsistent with Panentheism or any of my personal beliefs.

 

[Michael]

And this is my whole point: regardless of what "the academia" - scientists, individuals - might do, "science" as a system accepts that answers are incomplete. Theology doesn't.

I would say that depends on how the individual 'practices' their theology and/or their science. I don't know of too many people that claim that their personal "theology" is 'complete' and there's nothing more to answer. There are exceptions of course (dad comes to mind), but as a rule that's pretty rare.

 

[Skreeper]

It is even easier to be becoming a child of YHWH.

YHWH made everything simple.

Men just hate the truth/ mankind is evil.

I hope you don't run around telling kids that they are evil.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

But that is not how science works. As a scientist, you should know that.

The point was that educated, learned people were all witness to a "supernatural" event. These weren't "unscientific" persons.

I know academia doesnt work like that; I said physics can't and will not entertain that type of phenomenon because they operate on a different basis of qualification. They study the natural.

I am a mathematician.

Of course it is. But this is accepted.

Which is the point of my critique on academic science as the layperson "standard/arbiter" of truth.

And this is my whole point: regardless of what "the academia" - scientists, individuals - might do, "science" as a system accepts that answers are incomplete. Theology doesn't.

Science is not a system. It is knowledge. Academia is the system. And, yes, as it's own systemic authority, they determine what is accepted, and what isnt. I said this before.

Topology answers the holes in the idea of dark matter, and dark energy. But, the standard model takes a while to change. Most people aren't cognizant of this, and erroneously subscribe to obscelete, ot sophomoric conclusions simply because it is "accepted."

No, I understood that quite well. It doesn't change what I wrote at all... I would use the term "impossiblities" (especially in quotations) in exactly the same way.

Then, what was the point I was trying to make?

It doesn't change anything. The question is still: how do you exclude any kind of "unknow possibility"?

I told you: the fact that one impossibility is possible means you have to entertain all other impossibilities as possible. The nomenclature is for colloquial reasons; the point alludes to Schrodinger's Cat.

In the traditional or modern meaning?

The truth.

I would deny that it is an axiom in the traditional meaning... it is not concludable or obvious. And in the modern meaning: sure, anything can be an axiom. But it rather defeats the purpose.

I would say wilful ignorance prevents the simplicity of God and His axiomatic natures.

Correct. But you don't offer any.

It opens the door for any impossibility - you have observed that at least one element in the domain of impossibilities is possible, which means your domain is not 100% impossibilities (i.e., the probability that you will choose another impossibility to observe, and then another... and so on is NOT zero.)

I don't have to offer anything; that aforementioned statistic opens up the possibility for every possible impossibility to be observed.

No, again I got you quite well. But again, you claim to be a scientist. You are part of the "academia". You (should) know how science works.

What was my point, then?

And, I am a mathematician.

So where is the difference between scientists subjecting themselves to diseases, poisons, harmful physical conditions... in order to study them, understand them, "control" them... sometimes failing, sometimes getting hurt or dying... and your situation here?

You have, indeed, missed the point.

Which one is natural science: a) demons, poltergeists, and ghosts or b) poisons, diseases, harmful [physical] conditions?

What does physics, chemistry and biology study: nature or supernature?

Academic science could not help me in my fight against the only choice that isn't natural science, as it were, precisely because physics et. al do not study the "supernatural." If I waited for that, I would have been seriously injured, or dead.

 

[Freodin]

Are there currently any reliable methods to solve dissent in gravity theory, or dark matter theory? I don't even have a clue how one might solve dissent between LCDM proponents and the M-theory 'faithful", let alone any of those positions with EU/PC cosmology theory.

Are there currently any such means? Not that I am aware of... but I am just an amateur, and "high" physics have never been my speciality.

But that doesn't keep scientists from looking, does it? While in religion, there just are no means, period.

This should be entertaining. Keep in mind all I suggested is that the "effect" (not cause) was observable,and the concept of God (as nature) was consistent with that observation, and might "predict' that observation, unlike Pantheism for instance.

"God as nature" would be pantheism, so I fear I cannot follow you here.

But whether pan- or panentheism: a relationship can only exist between independent entities. So in order to keep "God as nature", and have humans have a relationship with it, you would have to define humans as supernatural (or rather, extranatural).

It's certainly a different way to 'interpret' that same set of observations from your perspective, but it doesn't exclude God from the interaction process from mine.



I'm not following you. In the sense that I believe that God is within everyone, yes humans do in fact interact with "themselves" and with other humans in the presence of God, but that doesn't *exclude* God from the interacton, that simply *includes* God in the interaction at best case. I fail t see how that is logically inconsistent with Panentheism or any of my personal beliefs.

But "nature" is not within everyone. Quite the opposite.

I would say that depends on how the individual 'practices' their theology and/or their science. I don't know of too many people that claim that their personal "theology" is 'complete' and there's nothing more to answer. There are exceptions of course (dad comes to mind), but as a rule that's pretty rare.

You misunderstood me here. I did not say that "their theology" or "their science" is complete. I specifically responded to your post where your said that some answers (in fact: all answers are) are incomplete. Theology doesn't work that way. As Ygrene said in his post: "The unchangeable nature of the Most High God is an axiom." There you have it: a "complete" answer.
And other than being a rare exception, this position is prevalent in theological positions. Like "There must be a supernatural cause" (joinfree paraphrased).
Agreed, scientists can be dogmatic. But science as a system is not. Theology is.

 

[Gene2memE]

The proof of the infinite pain:
1) if there is no hell, then there is no bottom of hell, 2) So, the hell has no bottom.

You can be as glib as you want, but your proof of design in nature, isn't a proof. And Pascal's Wager is threatening me with things I have no reason to believe exist.

Tell me, why is it you have the God belief you do? What was the argument or evidence that convinced you?

 

[klutedavid]

I have never understood this argument. It is easy for a believer to hypothesize that a deity that cannot be observed or measured, has existed from eternity but nature that can be observed and measured cannot have an infinite past. This is hardly a "proof".

Hello Jack.

A deity can be observed, Jesus was observed, Jesus was deity!

Science should never use the term, 'infinite', as infinite means an unbounded entity.
Any entity that cannot be measured cannot be understood by the scientific methodology.

The concept of infinite never belonged in mathematics either, as mathematics is based on bounded, finite numbers. All sets of numbers must be bounded by definition.

 

[Freodin]

The point was that educated, learned people were all witness to a "supernatural" event. These weren't "unscientific" persons.

I know academia doesnt work like that; I said physics can't and will not entertain that type of phenomenon because they operate on a different basis of qualification. They study the natural.

I am a mathematician.

But there is only the natural, remember? Consistent natures?

So what kind of different qualifications are there? Only that what can be "measured"? Weighted and quantified?

If you think this, it is you who don't know how science works.

Which is the point of my critique on academic science as the layperson "standard/arbiter" of truth.

That, I would say, is a problem with the laypersons, not with academic science.

Science is not a system. It is knowledge. Academia is the system. And, yes, as it's own systemic authority, they determine what is accepted, and what isnt. I said this before.

Science is the system. The academia is also a system... a system that works within the system of science.

"Die Wissenschaft ist ein System der Erkenntnisse über die wesentlichen Eigenschaften, kausalen Zusammenhänge und Gesetzmäßigkeiten der Natur, Technik, Gesellschaft und des Denkens, das in Form von Begriffen, Kategorien, Maßbestimmungen, Gesetzen, Theorien und Hypothesen fixiert wird." (Georg Klaus, Manfred Buhr
(Hrsg.): Philosophisches Wörterbuch. 11. Aufl., Leipzig 1975.)
(Science is a system of cognition of the essential properties, causal relations and regularities of nature, technic, society and though, which is fixated in the form of terms, categories, measurements, laws, theories and hypotheses.) (my translation)

Topology answers the holes in the idea of dark matter, and dark energy. But, the standard model takes a while to change. Most people aren't cognizant of this, and erroneously subscribe to obscelete, ot sophomoric conclusions simply because it is "accepted."

Again, a problem of "most people", not science.

Then, what was the point I was trying to make?

That, if you have to admit that one "impossibility" might be possible, other "impossibilities" might be possible as well.

I told you: the fact that one impossibility is possible means you have to entertain all other impossibilities as possible. The nomenclature is for colloquial reasons; the point alludes to Schrodinger's Cat.

But it seems that you don't entertain this notion.

The truth.

And you claim to be a mathematician? Really?

I would say wilful ignorance prevents the simplicity of God and His axiomatic natures.

I would say that claiming dogma as axiomatic is something a mathematician should never do.

It opens the door for any impossibility - you have observed that at least one element in the domain of impossibilities is possible, which means your domain is not 100% impossibilities (i.e., the probability that you will choose another impossibility to observe, and then another... and so on is NOT zero.)

I don't have to offer anything; that aforementioned statistic opens up the possibility for every possible impossibility to be observed.

And still you discount the impossibilities that disagree with your "axiomatic" position. That doesn't strike you as weird?

What was my point, then?

Reading your following paragraph, I must admit that I don't have a clue what your "point" was here. You seem to contradict yourself a little.

You have, indeed, missed the point.

Which one is natural science: a) demons, poltergeists, and ghosts or b) poisons, diseases, harmful [physical] conditions?

What does physics, chemistry and biology study: nature or supernature?

Academic science could not help me in my fight against the only choice that isn't natural science, as it were, precisely because physics et. al do not study the "supernatural." If I waited for that, I would have been seriously injured, or dead.

You seem to have missed my point... and ignored your own previous points.

So now we again have a distinction between "nature" and "supernature"? I thought there was no "supernatural"... only fields that the "academia" does not study.

But it might surprise you: science is not limited to physics, chemistry and biology. If it exists, and it is "natural", it can be studies. Scientific fields are just convenient labels.

But if something has a "consistent nature", it can be studied.

Again, that is my whole point: if there are demons, poltergeists and ghosts... how do they work? This might not be a question for chemistry or biology... let's make a new scientific field of "ghostology"!

But the question remains: how does it work? Is it consistent? Are there rules, are there the "essential properties, causal relations and regularities of nature" that the above definition states?

If there are, it can be scientifically studied and is not different from physics, chemistry, biology... or physiology, sociology or linguistics. The only difference between poison and demons are how to study them.

Or you can go the other way: admit that science cannot study them, because they don't have this consistent nature... they just "work". Which would support my initial point.