Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Your watered down and simplistic rendition of the supernatural hypothes lacks many of the ramifications of the supernatural intelligent designer, the historical events and fulfilled Biblical prophecy.Now I know that this is a science forum, but if you intend to bring the supernatural into this discussion and yet disallow supernatural evidence, you're whistling in the wind.When science comes up with a sensible model for problems like, no outside of, no space and no time relative to the alleged singularity, I don't see how science can claim that the supernatural hypothesis has failed.Science has labored incessantly to create useful life and so far, failed, yet science thinks without all of these high tech labs and apparatus being utilized by highly trained intelligent scientists, happenstance eventually achieved useful and indeed, immensely complex life, rife with intelligence, and it allegedly did it with no labs, no apparatus, and no intelligent planner or designer to get it up and going and emerging into billions of various complex systems.So, no. The supernatural hypothes has not failed. It is very much alive and relevant.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

As for mutiverses, they might begin with what to do with alleged no outside of and no before space and time/tme relative to our universe. The idea of multiverses shoots down all of these crucial aspects of the alleged singularity.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense at all.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This may go off-topic then, but could you name these experiments ?

Let me point you to our cosmologists, and also to the folk at the LHC. IIRC one will look at the other particles when a black hole is created. They are looking for some of the particles that theory says should exist if some of the theories are correct.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'm just as layman as you in all this, but as I said, all we can do about other universes is extrapolate a mathematical construct. We can of course test this mathematical construct as it applies to our universe, but we cannot test those extrapolations.

Why not?If the mathematical construct says that we should see certain things, and if those predicted things are then seen, does it not support the mathematical construct?AbE:

quote:

---

Because of the defective joints and some mysteriously underperforming magnets, it will still be three years at least before CERN’s collider runs at or near full strength. According to theoretical models, that would stretch out the time it should take to achieve the collider’s main goals, like producing the Higgs boson and testing more exotic ideas like extra dimensions.

---

From this articleEdited by jar, : add link and quote

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

How can there be other universes if there's no outside of our own for space to exist? What could be between alleged multiverses other than more space? If there's space between stuff, it's all one universe, space being part and parcel of the universe.There's no possible model for alleged multiverses nor does the possibility make any sense.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Still makes no sense Buz.There is no reason to think our universe is expanding into anything. So you assert.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

As I understand the multi-verse theory, it's because our laws can vary to an infinite degree that we postulate the reasonable hypothesis that an infinite amount of universes can spring up from these possible variations.So the laws in any universe that comes from a multi-verse system, would be a variation of the laws that govern ours. And I think that mathematically showing these possible variations, that can also describe conditions in another universe, is not only science, but the reason we came up with the theory to begin with.Science gave us the multi-verse hypothesis, not faith, belief, or any other methodology. In no way can I see this suggesting something supernatural, unless, of course, someone is not familiar with the the science behind it and uses the terms like "multi-verse" and "extra dimensions" in the science fiction sense. Well, since science came up with the hypothesis, and science only deals with the real and natural, there is no other way to view it.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi, Straggler.I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of a Supernatural Hypothesis, for two reasons:

1. How can it be a hypothesis?
   ​
2. Can all supernatural concepts be combined under a single, unified hypothesis?

I’m a little leery of the notion that any given set of supernatural ideas is an appropriate sample for testing the merits of all supernatural ideas in general, especially given the wide disparity in the concepts of different supernatural ideas. I think, at the very least, you need to break it up into a few distinct hypotheses: maybe supernatural phenomena, and supernatural beings, for starters.On another note, how do you feel about natural processes that are entirely stochastic (assuming such processes exist)? We can’t really offer much in the way of a naturalistic mechanism for such things, so calling them natural is a little off. But, calling them supernatural is probably also not warranted.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hey Buz Feel free to supply a fuller and more involved rendition of the supernatural hypothesis if you want. All I ask is that in doing so you recognise the fact that the supernatural hypothesis (in one form or another) seems to have been around for as long as man has existed.In other words the supernatural hypothesis does not begin and end with your specific Christian notion of the supernatural. Agreed? I was talking to a Muslim recently who claims that the Koran "predicted" the Big Bang. Post hoc interpretation of metaphorically ambiguous texts made with the benefits of scientific or historical hindsight are no more "predictions" than are the musing of Nostradamus. But I am sure you have a topic on that subject already going. So point me to it and I will pursue the issue of prediction with you there if you so wish.As for ID. What is it exactly that you think a supernatural intelligent designer is required to explain?And why a supernatural designer rather than a natural one? Given the topic title I hope that admins will see fit to allow "supernatural evidence" to be presented without deeming it off-topic or disallowed simply for it's supernatural nature.Personally I am bemused as to what "supernatural evidence" actually is? Can you elaborate with some examples? If you think every problem in science is a gap in which to insert the supernatural then you are following a dismal tradition of failure spanning the entirety of human history.Do you consider the god of the gaps to be a valid argument? Your argument here seems to be that because our intelligence has so far proved incapable of producing life from non-life that intelligence must therefore be required to produce life from non-life?How does that add-up? Why? Because we cannot wholly discern and/or replicate the extreme conditions of the Earth and/or universe billions of years ago?Don't you think that if there are non-supernatural answers to these questions that they might be quite difficult to investigate?Or does that not enter your thinking?

By being posited as an explanation for known phenomenon. My instinct is to point out that they are all as un-evidenced as each other and all seem to claim immunity from being investigated in terms of any reliable notion of evidence as each other. Thus (instinctively) my answer to your question is - Yes.But I am prepared to abandon or compromise that (admittedly) instinctive position if you can give me reason to? Can you give examples of the sort of thing you are distinguishing between? And the evidential difference you think there is between the two types you have mentioned (i.e. "phenomenon" and "beings"?) Stochastic (I had to look up this word) meaning conjectural or probabalistic?Again can you give an example of something that you would consider to be "stochastic" but which we can all agree is not supernatural?

(paranthesis and embolding mine)So now, listen up, sheeples. Here's how they do the science. Concoct up a mathmatical numbers game, ignore the observable laws of the universe and go with it for the multiple universe thingy. ABAKADABRA-DOO! IT'S SCIENCE!Mind you; don't ever call it faith, because secularists, you know have no faith. Remember? THEY DO THE NUMBERS GAME SCIENCE

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Please show us how the math is wrong Buz, show your work.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor