@ uncleanunicorn All the evidence that we have already points to the existence of a creator if we just apply reason and logic to the equation. Why must we keep trying to search for more and more evidence when we already found it all? How much more evidence is enough evidence before we can just accept the fact that the evidence that we have already points to the existence of a creator?
@@danielblair4413 probably because proving the creator doesn't make them anymore tangible as they don't care to show themself except by a clockwork design where the origin is unreachable nor can we guess the Creator's origin . Yet things are so intricate and yet all flawed in their own way and the most unlikely things can happen at any time .
Sounds like a ringing endorsement for permitting the testing of all claims in science, whether that be intelligent design, psychic abilities, and so on. If we can't tell magic from technology, we should test the whole lot and figure it out.
Even if you saw 50 limbs miraculously get healed, you still wouldn't have a way of ruling out that it wasn't done using some "natural" technology that isn't understood. For instance, how could you be sure that some alien from an advanced civilization isn't playing tricks and taking advantage of your gullibility?
There have been scientific studies about telepathy or the power of prayer. You don't hear them cited in super-natural circles because the results were not in their favor. For a scientific study concerning the effectiveness of prayer see, e.g.: "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)" from 2006. They sure did not like the results. And explained them away with "God can not be tested" which makes one wonder why to invest money and conduct the study in the first place. Haha.
It seems that the problem is that "supernatural" is defined as those phenomenon that have been reported but lack any supporting (empirical) evidence. If there's no empirical evidence, then there's no science (and there's probably no phenomenon). It boils down to: can the claim lead to testable hypotheses, at least in principle? If yes, science will work.
would it really be supernatural if it can be tested, prodded and explained? look at the technology we have today how long ago do we really need to go back with our technology to make it seem like magic? controlled fire in your pocket, a system that captures your likeness in the flash of a light small things that can send your voice to the other side of the planet, all sound pretty magical to me
Man (i.e. scientists, explorers, etc.) have been testing (and studying) the supernatural for centuries and most of the time, by the time we're done with the testing we end up only discovering that the supernatural aren't super, after all. Just natural.
There's a paradox to this problem. Once we determine that a supernatural occurrence has happened, i.e. limbs growing back without any known natural explanation, that occurrence has become natural. In other words, discovering that something we currently consider supernatural actually exists simply broadens our definition of what is natural. Once we know something exists it can be measured and tested. We can only test for something where its effects are known to exist. We cannot discern the supernatural's effects from natural effects, unless the known laws of nature have been suspended, so I'd suggest that we can't actually test for the supernatural. We've never experienced the laws of nature being suspended, have we?
***** it would make the problem a little less of an issue if the limb didn't grow back, if say a new limb popped into existence, a ghostly Jesus figure grabbed the limb and the human and snapped them together like a Lego. That said your point still stands. I've always disagreed with the word supernatural anyway. Because if God exists that is just part of reality. Theoretically God could perfectly explain how he functions and how he can do actions what us peons consider supernatural actions.
***** If limbs always grew back when a certain prayer is uttered the phenomenon would also stop to be supernatural. It would be a perfectly normal, repeatable, testable occurrence. You may not know at the moment which force is at work and propose different hypotheses - but it would be a natural phenomenon just like gravity or electricity.
ChaldeanCauldron I agree there is much to learn - but 'what if' has been proven a great source of inspiration that drives future discoveries. Growing back limbs is - in principle - very easy and I am sure to see it within my lifetime. The fact that other vertebrates can do it and we did it ourselves once means we only need to re-/ activate the proper biochemical commands used during our embryonic development. It still needs a lot of basic biochemical and molecular biological research - and those "boring" studies will also be driven by the stupid fictional 'what if" of growing back limbs.
***** How could you possibly do that? To prove limbs regrew due to prayer, first you'd have to establish, beyond any doubt, the existence of a god. The only way a god will ever be deemed to conclusively exist is if that god self-demonstrates its existence and characteristics to us. That hasn't happened yet. You can wait up for it if you want. Let me know when he arrives, okay?
It's a question of definition. In my view, if eg. telepathy could be empirically shown to work, it would no longer be supernatural, but natural. If prayer has a non-random effect on the natural world, it would be part of the natural world.
Prayer is the most scientifically tested supernatural claim in history. Good work mentioning JREF's million dollar challenge btw; I confront EVERY 'psychic' I've met with that, they always say "It's not about money." at which point it's fun to point out a million bucks will save three million children's lives with access to clean water. ;)
I think supernatural is just what we don't know is natural yet. Once discovered, it becomes part of the natural. It's a worthless term, and is best replaced by unknown.
This is what causes confusion. The very definition of supernatural rules itself out of scientific consideration, and yet the term is still used by many scientists to describe forces that we should hypothetically be able to test.
Jerry Grauert *Because the laws of logic is a human construct to keep linguistic consistency* , the universe is ''logical'' because of it's internal consistency; say it with me: *Logic is a human construct for linguistic consistency. Consistency in the universe is not the laws of logic, but a property of the universe that the laws of logic, the human mental construct adheres to* Nobody has a matter only worldview; there's the electromagnetic spectrum, sub-atomic particles and much much more. The universe contains whatever it actually contains and a cause without an explanation (''god did it'') is useless if it can't be observed or measured in anyway.
Jerry Grauert That's right, Jerry, the laws of logic did not exist before humans created them. Why did you ask this? did you think it was a gotcha question? Seriously, dude, you sound like Sye Ten Bruggencate . Why did you apologize for something about me that is the opposite of truth? Do you think I can be insulted by one that seems no better than a presuppositionalist? Just admit you are one, right now, so you can be excused. If not, then go see how you are just like them and what a shameful fate they have met. Go on. You have the internet. Learn!
Jerry Grauert Wow, you still didn't get it... Obviously the universe existed, but that's not the laws of logic. Consistency in the universe is not the construct based off of the consistency in the universe that we refer to as the ''laws of logic''. *The construct is not the same thing as the thing on which the construct is based on* The universe is consistent, but NOT BECAUSE of the laws of logic; rather the laws of logic are consistent BECAUSE the universe is consistent. Simply put; the laws of logic is a system of reasoning we invented to make sense of the universe based on the consistency in the universe, not vise versa.
One of the objections to testing claims of the supernatural is how do you block out a god? How do you set up a control group that isn't influenced by a supernatural being, who by definition is omnipresence? I am a advocate that you can test the effects of a phenomenon, a manifestation in the real universe, but how do you show that it isn't a god?
whether or not you can test something, supernatural or otherwise, depends on consistency. If and pray for limbs to grow back but they consistently don't then you can conduct a test and come up with the theory that prayer will not bring back limbs. on the other hand when most people talk about the supernatural, they usually means something that is inconsistent with most natural things such as rare occasions of water turned into wine and rare occasions like someone who is cured from cancer unexpectedly or something similar to that. things like that I do not considered to be testable by science because they aren't consistent. because people aren't always going to be cured by cancer out of the blue and water isn't always going to turn into wine unless he is involved in which case the water would consistently turn into one which would be testable but I'm kind of destroying own examples
@Discern4 It seems I can't reply directly in this app. I think the quote was Clarke weighing in on the God of the Gaps. We ARE investigating more than my grandfather could ever imagine. The superstitious are finding fewer and fewer places to hide as science provides rational explanations for more and more. PFM is running out of steam. And about time.
Science went looking for an answer to the question 'what is consciousness?'. I saw this as an utterly futile enterprise for similar reasons as testing for the supernatural would be. Personally, I have always been fascinated and interested in so called supernatural claims. I do not think investigation of supernatural ideas is pointless. Nevertheless I have come to equate science with naturalism and see little value in applying scientific efforts to the insubstantial claims of supernaturalism.
No it can't, but at the same time there's no rational way to even create supernatural hypotheses to test in the first place. And with no way to make a rational hypothesis and even when you can test that hypothesis, it will always remain irrational to believe any supernatural explanation, even if it were true. You can actually extend this to dark energy, somewhat. But notice how proponents of dark energy are honest enough to say "Something is exerting energy on observable universe, but we can't see it, and can't really say more than that until we can work out what to look for". The real issue with supernatural claims is that instead of reasoning from the observation. (i.e. Observation > Hypothesis > Test > Peer review > Theory > Conclusion) is that they're done almost backwards: (Observation > Conclusion > Test) Which just opens up all of the confirmation biases we see from any believer of supernatural phenomena.
Science says what the most likely explanation for the world we see is. If that explanation doesn't include the supernatural, surely that makes the supernatural less likely?
Another excellent video from Discern4! It got me thinking: Throughout the bible, God says he performed certain marvelous acts in order to make a name for himself. I think the first instance of this is in Exodus concerning the parting of the Red Sea, as well as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Basically, any time a prophet of God was around, and a challenge to God's power arose, some pretty amazing shit went down. The argument is often made today by Christians, that miracles like the ones that took place in the Bible don't NEED to happen anymore because we have the complete record of everything God ever wanted us to know about him; And if we have faith in that record, then it naturally follows that we KNOW those miracles took place. Thing is though, it wasn't even a month after the Israelites witnessed God's parting of the Red Sea, that they had forgotten about him! God was happy to make appearances here and there back in the day; and now that we have technology which allows us to record events, God has become camera shy. Coincidence? It would sure be nice if he would give all of us thinking people some irrefutable proof such as he used to give to illiterate nomads before he slaughters us all at Armageddon.
The term "supernatural" is a value judgment, a prejudicial term implying that a thing is not only outside of nature but above it as well - as if in control of it. This would give "believers" a non-negotiated advantage in debates with non-believers. The term "extra-natural", I believe, would keep the exchange on a level plane. The same would be true as well of the term "God", one which means so much to so many that it ends up meaning nothing specific to anyone. Far better would be to "the god of the Old Testament" or somesuch, limiting the deity to a particular literary context. Best of all , of course, would be "a god or gods", positing it/them in its/their true context: Mythology..
What if scientists investigate some events and find out that actually God or Satan or any paranatural being did it. Is it still supernatural explanation ?
The "god did it"-hypotheses tend to be a bit weak on the specifics. Other claims, such as homeopathic medications, chakras and astrology can all produce coherent hypotheses, which have been tested - and rejected. Gravity was once considered superstitious, or at least "mystic", but has been integrated in modern scientific theory. So yes, if a specific hypothesis is being tested in a meaningful way, scientific journals may consider them, even if the theory behind them is strange.
Yes! Science can and is used to test and measure the effectiveness of many religious assertions and predictions which theists often attribute to supernatural causation. Theists make many predictions they claim are based on scripture from God such as end time dates, the return of the messiah and the following claims: What's the success rate of prayer? Does prayer have a higher success rate than chance? Does gay marriage cause natural disasters? Does original sin cause death and disease? Does preaching abstinence to teenagers actually reduce teen pregnancies? Does the married Christian community have a lower divorce rate than other cohorts? Does Christian gay conversion therapy actually produce contented heterosexuals who're no longer haunted by desires of gay love? Does belief in the lord Jesus Christ make people happier and contented than enlightened secularists? Is the Bible a more scientifically accurate representation of nature than modern science books? The scientific process can be used to test the validity of these religious assertions and predictions. In fact many of them have already been tested and sadly for Christians they've failed or are no better than chance.
Well that sucks for them. What about other stuff unrelated to the abrahamic God ? Like that aura bullshit or that our life is decided by the stars ? What are your thoughts on this weird shit ? www.speakingtree.in/allslides/the-scientific-evidence-of-human-aura
I believe in GOD, however that does not mean I am ignorant of science. My grandmother once said the name of one of my uncles back in Mexico in the middle of the night in a worried voice. My mother called him two days later, and it turned out that he got broke his arm falling off a horse around the same time my grandmother said his name.
If prayer is real then why is there famine war diseases ? People pray everyday and its still here. I once prayed when I was 8 and after nothing happened I never did it again. Why? Well because nothing happened.
Natural and supernatural don't exist. They're just (pretty useful) words to help people communicate complex concepts. Although, I have been a fan of the quote "if religion were true, it would be a branch of engineering by now."
I looked it up. The original quote was If anything of the classical supernatural existed, it would be a branch of engineering by now. -- Steve Gilham It's not attributed to any place, so I would assume it was either in an interview or a social media post. I found it myself at Less Wrong's quote compilation at people.mokk.bme.hu/~daniel/rationality_quotes_2013/rq.html
Is science natural? Is it natural for life to develop a cognitive abstract awareness of existence? Life existed in many forms on this planet without Art or Science. Is art a naturally occurring inevitability in a life form or a supernatural or extra-natural result of dominant survival.?
Maybe it's not an occurring inevitability, but an occurring evitability; it doesn't *have* to happen, but it could and did. We don't know why, but anything that happens is defined as a natural event; so if we did find evidence of a 'supernatural' event, it would redefined as a natural.
Jerry Grauert That's a nonsensical question. A mental concept doesn't have weight.. Can you weight me some green? Can show me how an ''open'' looks? Of course not. Let's say you have a laptop and you open it, there you have demonstrated the concept of ''open'' to me. Try demonstrating ''open'' to me without anything to open; it's impossible to demonstrate without something relative to it because of the limitations of language.
I think definitionally it cannot. What is thought of as supernatural, but becomes demonstrable, almost becomes a natural part of our universe by definition.
I'm actually gonna say yes, but before something becomes a fact, you still got to prove it, if something magically happens, and you want to claim supernatural, you got to exclude the positibility that it is something else. Heck, writing "God" as your conlusion whiole any supernatural being could potensially have done it would not be valid. A true scientific, supernatural conclusion would say, cause: undetermined.
We are in a primitive state of science, as we understand it. If we dive deep, we will realize that even the weirdest of the phenomenon does have an explanation. and can be measured n an undiscovered scale.
When you think about everything that is understood today / natural , it was once thought as or viewed as the supernatural by our ancestor / the ancients . Here's an interesting question : How can you tell the difference between the supernatural and a rare natural event that isn't known due to it's rare occurance or not understand by us yet ? I also ( like the comment below me: GuewglwSuxballz ) say the word "supernatural " should be stripped or replaced by the words : abnormal or the unknown .
Columbus wasn't looking for the new world but when he ran into it the evidence could not be denied. If science encountered the supernatural, it would have to accept it. So far, science hasn't found the supernatural.
If something supernatural ever interacts with the real world, the interaction can be tested.
@ uncleanunicorn
All the evidence that we have already points to the existence of a creator if we just apply reason and logic to the equation.
Why must we keep trying to search for more and more evidence when we already found it all?
How much more evidence is enough evidence before we can just accept the fact that the evidence that we have already points to the existence of a creator?
@@danielblair4413 probably because proving the creator doesn't make them anymore tangible as they don't care to show themself except by a clockwork design where the origin is unreachable nor can we guess the Creator's origin . Yet things are so intricate and yet all flawed in their own way and the most unlikely things can happen at any time .
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-Arthur C. Clarke
Sounds like a ringing endorsement for permitting the testing of all claims in science, whether that be intelligent design, psychic abilities, and so on. If we can't tell magic from technology, we should test the whole lot and figure it out.
Even if you saw 50 limbs miraculously get healed, you still wouldn't have a way of ruling out that it wasn't done using some "natural" technology that isn't understood. For instance, how could you be sure that some alien from an advanced civilization isn't playing tricks and taking advantage of your gullibility?
Yes, this is a good point.
And any religion on the planet can go:
It was my God! MY God! Mine! MINE MINE MINE!
There have been scientific studies about telepathy or the power of prayer.
You don't hear them cited in super-natural circles because the results were not in their favor.
For a scientific study concerning the effectiveness of prayer see, e.g.: "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)" from 2006.
They sure did not like the results. And explained them away with "God can not be tested" which makes one wonder why to invest money and conduct the study in the first place. Haha.
It seems that the problem is that "supernatural" is defined as those phenomenon that have been reported but lack any supporting (empirical) evidence. If there's no empirical evidence, then there's no science (and there's probably no phenomenon). It boils down to: can the claim lead to testable hypotheses, at least in principle? If yes, science will work.
would it really be supernatural if it can be tested, prodded and explained?
look at the technology we have today how long ago do we really need to go back with our technology to make it seem like magic?
controlled fire in your pocket, a system that captures your likeness in the flash of a light small things that can send your voice to the other side of the planet, all sound pretty magical to me
Man (i.e. scientists, explorers, etc.) have been testing (and studying) the supernatural for centuries and most of the time, by the time we're done with the testing we end up only discovering that the supernatural aren't super, after all. Just natural.
good comment.
Answering your final question in the video:
Short answer: No.
Long answer: NO!
There's a paradox to this problem. Once we determine that a supernatural occurrence has happened, i.e. limbs growing back without any known natural explanation, that occurrence has become natural. In other words, discovering that something we currently consider supernatural actually exists simply broadens our definition of what is natural. Once we know something exists it can be measured and tested.
We can only test for something where its effects are known to exist. We cannot discern the supernatural's effects from natural effects, unless the known laws of nature have been suspended, so I'd suggest that we can't actually test for the supernatural. We've never experienced the laws of nature being suspended, have we?
Yeah, it is a conundrum due to the unfortunate use of the word 'supernatural', which confuses the issue.
***** it would make the problem a little less of an issue if the limb didn't grow back, if say a new limb popped into existence, a ghostly Jesus figure grabbed the limb and the human and snapped them together like a Lego.
That said your point still stands. I've always disagreed with the word supernatural anyway. Because if God exists that is just part of reality. Theoretically God could perfectly explain how he functions and how he can do actions what us peons consider supernatural actions.
***** If limbs always grew back when a certain prayer is uttered the phenomenon would also stop to be supernatural.
It would be a perfectly normal, repeatable, testable occurrence. You may not know at the moment which force is at work and propose different hypotheses - but it would be a natural phenomenon just like gravity or electricity.
ChaldeanCauldron I agree there is much to learn - but 'what if' has been proven a great source of inspiration that drives future discoveries.
Growing back limbs is - in principle - very easy and I am sure to see it within my lifetime. The fact that other vertebrates can do it and we did it ourselves once means we only need to re-/ activate the proper biochemical commands used during our embryonic development.
It still needs a lot of basic biochemical and molecular biological research - and those "boring" studies will also be driven by the stupid fictional 'what if" of growing back limbs.
*****
How could you possibly do that? To prove limbs regrew due to prayer, first you'd have to establish, beyond any doubt, the existence of a god. The only way a god will ever be deemed to conclusively exist is if that god self-demonstrates its existence and characteristics to us. That hasn't happened yet. You can wait up for it if you want. Let me know when he arrives, okay?
It's a question of definition. In my view, if eg. telepathy could be empirically shown to work, it would no longer be supernatural, but natural. If prayer has a non-random effect on the natural world, it would be part of the natural world.
Prayer is the most scientifically tested supernatural claim in history. Good work mentioning JREF's million dollar challenge btw; I confront EVERY 'psychic' I've met with that, they always say "It's not about money." at which point it's fun to point out a million bucks will save three million children's lives with access to clean water. ;)
I think supernatural is just what we don't know is natural yet. Once discovered, it becomes part of the natural. It's a worthless term, and is best replaced by unknown.
This is what causes confusion. The very definition of supernatural rules itself out of scientific consideration, and yet the term is still used by many scientists to describe forces that we should hypothetically be able to test.
Jerry Grauert Sorry, dude, but that sounds way too much like some presuppositionalist bullshit.
Jerry Grauert *Because the laws of logic is a human construct to keep linguistic consistency* , the universe is ''logical'' because of it's internal consistency; say it with me: *Logic is a human construct for linguistic consistency. Consistency in the universe is not the laws of logic, but a property of the universe that the laws of logic, the human mental construct adheres to*
Nobody has a matter only worldview; there's the electromagnetic spectrum, sub-atomic particles and much much more. The universe contains whatever it actually contains and a cause without an explanation (''god did it'') is useless if it can't be observed or measured in anyway.
Jerry Grauert That's right, Jerry, the laws of logic did not exist before humans created them. Why did you ask this? did you think it was a gotcha question? Seriously, dude, you sound like Sye Ten Bruggencate . Why did you apologize for something about me that is the opposite of truth? Do you think I can be insulted by one that seems no better than a presuppositionalist? Just admit you are one, right now, so you can be excused. If not, then go see how you are just like them and what a shameful fate they have met. Go on. You have the internet. Learn!
Jerry Grauert
Wow, you still didn't get it...
Obviously the universe existed, but that's not the laws of logic. Consistency in the universe is not the construct based off of the consistency in the universe that we refer to as the ''laws of logic''. *The construct is not the same thing as the thing on which the construct is based on* The universe is consistent, but NOT BECAUSE of the laws of logic; rather the laws of logic are consistent BECAUSE the universe is consistent.
Simply put; the laws of logic is a system of reasoning we invented to make sense of the universe based on the consistency in the universe, not vise versa.
One of the objections to testing claims of the supernatural is how do you block out a god? How do you set up a control group that isn't influenced by a supernatural being, who by definition is omnipresence?
I am a advocate that you can test the effects of a phenomenon, a manifestation in the real universe, but how do you show that it isn't a god?
Science has its limits!
whether or not you can test something, supernatural or otherwise, depends on consistency. If and pray for limbs to grow back but they consistently don't then you can conduct a test and come up with the theory that prayer will not bring back limbs. on the other hand when most people talk about the supernatural, they usually means something that is inconsistent with most natural things such as rare occasions of water turned into wine and rare occasions like someone who is cured from cancer unexpectedly or something similar to that. things like that I do not considered to be testable by science because they aren't consistent. because people aren't always going to be cured by cancer out of the blue and water isn't always going to turn into wine unless he is involved in which case the water would consistently turn into one which would be testable but I'm kind of destroying own examples
@Discern4
It seems I can't reply directly in this app.
I think the quote was Clarke weighing in on the God of the Gaps. We ARE investigating more than my grandfather could ever imagine.
The superstitious are finding fewer and fewer places to hide as science provides rational explanations for more and more.
PFM is running out of steam. And about time.
thanks for the reply
As soon as you attempt to measure the supernatural, it vanishes.
Hmmmm. Why might that be the case?
VERY IMPRESSED!!!!!!!!!!!!
Science went looking for an answer to the question 'what is consciousness?'. I saw this as an utterly futile enterprise for similar reasons as testing for the supernatural would be. Personally, I have always been fascinated and interested in so called supernatural claims. I do not think investigation of supernatural ideas is pointless. Nevertheless I have come to equate science with naturalism and see little value in applying scientific efforts to the insubstantial claims of supernaturalism.
No it can't, but at the same time there's no rational way to even create supernatural hypotheses to test in the first place. And with no way to make a rational hypothesis and even when you can test that hypothesis, it will always remain irrational to believe any supernatural explanation, even if it were true.
You can actually extend this to dark energy, somewhat. But notice how proponents of dark energy are honest enough to say "Something is exerting energy on observable universe, but we can't see it, and can't really say more than that until we can work out what to look for".
The real issue with supernatural claims is that instead of reasoning from the observation. (i.e. Observation > Hypothesis > Test > Peer review > Theory > Conclusion) is that they're done almost backwards: (Observation > Conclusion > Test) Which just opens up all of the confirmation biases we see from any believer of supernatural phenomena.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
How could you say something is supernatural?
Science says what the most likely explanation for the world we see is. If that explanation doesn't include the supernatural, surely that makes the supernatural less likely?
Another excellent video from Discern4!
It got me thinking:
Throughout the bible, God says he performed certain marvelous acts in order to make a name for himself. I think the first instance of this is in Exodus concerning the parting of the Red Sea, as well as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Basically, any time a prophet of God was around, and a challenge to God's power arose, some pretty amazing shit went down.
The argument is often made today by Christians, that miracles like the ones that took place in the Bible don't NEED to happen anymore because we have the complete record of everything God ever wanted us to know about him; And if we have faith in that record, then it naturally follows that we KNOW those miracles took place.
Thing is though, it wasn't even a month after the Israelites witnessed God's parting of the Red Sea, that they had forgotten about him! God was happy to make appearances here and there back in the day; and now that we have technology which allows us to record events, God has become camera shy. Coincidence?
It would sure be nice if he would give all of us thinking people some irrefutable proof such as he used to give to illiterate nomads before he slaughters us all at Armageddon.
3:18 it didn’t say it had to be real evidence…
The term "supernatural" is a value judgment, a prejudicial term implying that a thing is not only outside of nature but above it as well - as if in control of it. This would give "believers" a non-negotiated advantage in debates with non-believers. The term "extra-natural", I believe, would keep the exchange on a level plane.
The same would be true as well of the term "God", one which means so much to so many that it ends up meaning nothing specific to anyone. Far better would be to "the god of the Old Testament" or somesuch, limiting the deity to a particular literary context. Best of all , of course, would be "a god or gods", positing it/them in its/their true context: Mythology..
What if scientists investigate some events and find out that actually God or Satan or any paranatural being did it.
Is it still supernatural explanation ?
The "god did it"-hypotheses tend to be a bit weak on the specifics.
Other claims, such as homeopathic medications, chakras and astrology can all produce coherent hypotheses, which have been tested - and rejected. Gravity was once considered superstitious, or at least "mystic", but has been integrated in modern scientific theory. So yes, if a specific hypothesis is being tested in a meaningful way, scientific journals may consider them, even if the theory behind them is strange.
Yes! Science can and is used to test and measure the effectiveness of many religious assertions and predictions which theists often attribute to supernatural causation.
Theists make many predictions they claim are based on scripture from God such as end time dates, the return of the messiah and the following claims:
What's the success rate of prayer?
Does prayer have a higher success rate than chance?
Does gay marriage cause natural disasters?
Does original sin cause death and disease?
Does preaching abstinence to teenagers actually reduce teen pregnancies?
Does the married Christian community have a lower divorce rate than other cohorts?
Does Christian gay conversion therapy actually produce contented heterosexuals who're no longer haunted by desires of gay love?
Does belief in the lord Jesus Christ make people happier and contented than enlightened secularists?
Is the Bible a more scientifically accurate representation of nature than modern science books?
The scientific process can be used to test the validity of these religious assertions and predictions.
In fact many of them have already been tested and sadly for Christians they've failed or are no better than chance.
Well that sucks for them. What about other stuff unrelated to the abrahamic God ? Like that aura bullshit or that our life is decided by the stars ? What are your thoughts on this weird shit ? www.speakingtree.in/allslides/the-scientific-evidence-of-human-aura
I believe in GOD, however that does not mean I am ignorant of science. My grandmother once said the name of one of my uncles back in Mexico in the middle of the night in a worried voice. My mother called him two days later, and it turned out that he got broke his arm falling off a horse around the same time my grandmother said his name.
If prayer is real then why is there famine war diseases ? People pray everyday and its still here. I once prayed when I was 8 and after nothing happened I never did it again. Why? Well because nothing happened.
Natural and supernatural don't exist. They're just (pretty useful) words to help people communicate complex concepts.
Although, I have been a fan of the quote "if religion were true, it would be a branch of engineering by now."
Great quote! Where is it from?
I looked it up. The original quote was
If anything of the classical supernatural existed, it would be a branch of engineering by now.
-- Steve Gilham
It's not attributed to any place, so I would assume it was either in an interview or a social media post. I found it myself at Less Wrong's quote compilation at people.mokk.bme.hu/~daniel/rationality_quotes_2013/rq.html
Dabor Thanks
Dabor Good quote. Also, I got your message and I'll reply as soon as I can. Mehja1, I got yours as well!
Is science natural?
Is it natural for life to develop a cognitive abstract awareness of existence?
Life existed in many forms on this planet without Art or Science.
Is art a naturally occurring inevitability in a life form or a supernatural or extra-natural result of dominant survival.?
Maybe it's not an occurring inevitability, but an occurring evitability; it doesn't *have* to happen, but it could and did. We don't know why, but anything that happens is defined as a natural event; so if we did find evidence of a 'supernatural' event, it would redefined as a natural.
Jerry Grauert
Yes.
Anything that exists in the universe would be by definition natural. Even if it is a concept conjured in the human mind.
Jerry Grauert That's a nonsensical question. A mental concept doesn't have weight..
Can you weight me some green? Can show me how an ''open'' looks? Of course not.
Let's say you have a laptop and you open it, there you have demonstrated the concept of ''open'' to me. Try demonstrating ''open'' to me without anything to open; it's impossible to demonstrate without something relative to it because of the limitations of language.
Once we can test, observe, and make accurate predictions on something then it is no longer supernatural. Until then, stick with the facts.
I think definitionally it cannot. What is thought of as supernatural, but becomes demonstrable, almost becomes a natural part of our universe by definition.
That sounds more like a problem with the use of the word "supernatural" than it is with whether science can actually test for these phenomenon.
Discern4
Yes, if I understand you correctly.
By definition the supernatural is nonsensical.
Marin Dajo is miracle person
I'm actually gonna say yes, but before something becomes a fact, you still got to prove it, if something magically happens, and you want to claim supernatural, you got to exclude the positibility that it is something else. Heck, writing "God" as your conlusion whiole any supernatural being could potensially have done it would not be valid.
A true scientific, supernatural conclusion would say, cause: undetermined.
We are in a primitive state of science, as we understand it. If we dive deep, we will realize that even the weirdest of the phenomenon does have an explanation. and can be measured n an undiscovered scale.
When you think about everything that is understood today / natural , it was once thought as or viewed as the supernatural by our ancestor / the ancients .
Here's an interesting question : How can you tell the difference between the supernatural and a rare natural event that isn't known due to it's rare occurance or not understand by us yet ?
I also ( like the comment below me: GuewglwSuxballz ) say the word "supernatural " should be stripped or replaced by the words : abnormal or the unknown .
Columbus wasn't looking for the new world but when he ran into it the evidence could not be denied. If science encountered the supernatural, it would have to accept it. So far, science hasn't found the supernatural.
Indeed - science can only investigate that which is actually real...
And since supernatural is the ultimate reality
@@Hhjhfu247 If you can show it to actually exist THEN you can try to make a case for that.
You can't test the supernatural. Things like God and stuff like that aren't in the realm of nature. I think you can't prove nor disprove God.