Studying the supernatural

Hi Chuck77 A third possibility is that "natural" is "supernatural" -- that everything "natural" was created that way.Enjoy.

In summary - We cannot scientifically test for the existence of supernatural entities despite the fact that many many people claim to be able to detect supernatural entities because.........?Can you clarify this?If the prevalence of human claims regarding the supernatural is an indicator of the existence of the supernatural (i.e. subjective "evidence") then it would seem that such entities should be readily detectable with more advanced equipment than human eyes, ears etc.No?

Sheesh. We went through a whole thread to determine that there was no such thing as "subjective evidence". If the supernatural is anything outside of human perception, (something along the lines of the SA article that I mentioned), then maybe you're right.

Well, im not so sure it's contradictory. I suppose the thing is, if you are not a chritstian/religious person and know absolutly nothing about ANY type of diety or SN anything would we be able to recognize it thru what we see/test everyday.For me, I have a Bible, church, etc etc (a few creationist websites I like a lot) and to me, it explains things. If I wasn't a Christian I wouldn't be debating here I suppose. Maybe I would even be debating along side you.I do have to say I don't think God is trying to fool anyone. I really think we look at evidence?/things differently. Well, I understand that but it's really not possible IMO. Maybe we can be the first group of people to discover such a thing.Maybe im taking the wrong approach here. Maybe this isn't a debate about the impossibility but just, possibilities. Yeah, im sorry for mucking that up. I do actually know that. I got lost in the moment. Well, good question...lol. Can we just cite creationist websites all day with citations? Who knows. Im not sure what we're really discussing tho. Are we talking about for example- bluegenes theory or the great flood? Ok. Again, it was an overreation. Well yeah, but that kind of makes it sound like im a UFO enthusiast. Im not of that particular ilk. So you might say "yeah, there is actually more evidence for UFO's" (it's just a guess you would say that).The thing is, I didn't have an "experience" with a UFO. You might also say "how do you know they aren't martians fooling you into thinking it's God". GEEEZ Percy, you hang around Straggler too much. Science knows the natural explanation, not the SN one. It certainly isnt sciences' fault. Why are people just satisfied with just a natural explanation is my question.Of course it's not sciences problem to answer that. It's not their obligation. Maybe it seems like creationists hate Science but really we/I don't. Im not sure why it is the way it is. Do you? Well, how's explained? Because something has an explanation doesn't (to me) exclude anything SN. God is ok with us understanding how things work. It's just He doesn't seem to garner much credit for the things that He created to work the way they do. That's what im saying. And again you'll say "if I can see Gods fingerprints on it, i'll give Him credit."Maybe im off topic a little bit here. Am I off topic mentioning God? Are we mostly discussing SN beings like ghosts, goblins, etc etc? How to actually test to see if they exist? Is God-Jesus included here?I think Straggler was trying to get me to see earlier that there is no difference between Jesus and Thor when he asked about Jesus' DNA. Ok. well, I have so much information on the flood. I've even written and recieved responses from the Creationists that wrote the articles for more clarification. It would be great to discuss certain things here, but im not sure you or anyone here would think it's evidence. Well, I know because i've read the debates here.That is why, I don't understand this thread that Mod proposed. It's obvious what is allowed or discussed as possible or not possible testing/evidence etc. isnt it? Well, before I got saved I wasn't debating the Creation/Evolution view of things. Of course it has something to do with it. Then, we get involved and listen to people who are smarter than we are.The first time I debated anyone was on the Yahoo science articles which I used bob Dutko's top ten proofs to do. (I really like him, I know that isn't popular to probably say but I do).It didn't go to well and found myself trying to defend something I have no clue was about. I've learned a lot since that one day. I still believe a lot of it but not clear on everything.So, im not sure how to test for the everything SN. I guess it's what tests are really tests and what is SN and what isn't.If we say the flood was a God thing then if we test for the flood are we testing the SN? I think so maybe, possibly, not sure.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Huh? Have you ever read the subjective evidence threads? There is tons of recources for the christian faith if interested. PM me and i'll get you started.Or just go to the Bible section here. The Bible is a SN book written my men inspired of God.If Straggler says we can study prayer then surley we can study the Bible to see it it's true.

I don't follow. I assume you means this Well there is context to scripture. So I suppose I could quote you all of the healing verses, as well as the you ask not therefore recieve not verses, so on and so forth and so on. Me or Straggler? He's the one who said prayer was good to go. Not me. Im good either way. In principle yes/no. God can appear to anyone He chooses. It's asking Him to do it on demand that gets tricky ya know? Faith is a big thing.The thing is it's not blind faith. Once that faith is excersized you see the light It's just not so bright to you because you don;t believe. It's brighter to others and even brighter to some and then they take the leap, get saved, and become a #1 on the dawkins scale. See, and Percy said you cared It's quite the question isn't it? To me very much so. How to convey that to you, I suppose is the purpose of the thread.

Hmmmm. Nothing happens on it's own. Or I should say nothing happens outside of Gods province. Straggler, there is actually a verse for that. So yeah, of course that is true and I fully believe it. Sometimes you know he is there and other times you knowStop by during a prayer session with me and two of my friends and you might even end up getting saved due to experiencing the presense of God.So yes, I would say there is. Bring along a few Scientists too. The only DNA we would have a Jesus would be something he touched or wore, etc... when here 2000 years ago.Right now tho, in this present time if He were to visit us in person, He has a glorified body. A heavenly body. No DNA as DNA is a human thing.

Yeah, so what's the problem? How should we go about doing this? This is quite shocking. I wasn't aware. So all these prayers of mine that were answered don't count because a scientific study wasn't there to document it? I take back everything I said about you Paul. You're ok. Damit! You have a weird way of doing so.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

So as far as you are concerned God is directly manipulating the world to cause storms and allow aeroplanes and birds to fly? The naturalistic explanations for these things in no way negates any direct role for God in these, or any other, phenomena? God is playing the role assigned to Thor and the flight gnomes mentioned above? Well the last time you (very belligerently) claimed to know something you had to back down and admit that you didn't really know it at all.In this case can you explain how your "know" is anything more than an expression of deep conviction? It is nonsensical for you to fanatically cheer the notion that the supernatural is something inherently and innately unable to be studied whilst simultaneously believing in a supernatural being that walked amongst us in a physical form.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That makes no sense at all.If you want to study prayer you study prayer first hand; not what bronze age writers say.Can you see why this would be a terrible way to study prayer? Don't you think a double blind design would be far better?Or any experimental design, for that matter.

The Templeton Foundation (a pro-theistic organisation) did a blue ribbon standard, peer reviewed study into the efficacy of prayer after a number of previous studies in the field were accused of methodological weaknesses. The results of this study were negative. Templeton Foundation Post Research Press Release and Associated Links

quote:

---

Yeah, so what's the problem? How should we go about doing this?

---

The way it has been done is on the lines of a clinical trial. Split patients into two groups, organise prayers for one group and not for the other.

quote:

---

This is quite shocking. I wasn't aware. So all these prayers of mine that were answered don't count because a scientific study wasn't there to document it?

---

They don't count as reliable evidence because of all the problems with anecdotes. They are worth no more than the testimonials for "alternative" health care and for much the same reasons.

quote:

---

You have a weird way of doing so.

---

I don't think so. You can't correct the deficiencies in your posts unless you know about them, can you ?

Alas not everyone is as enlightened or reasonable as you and I GDR. Then how can it's conception be sourced from anywhere other than the internal workings of creative minds? I think this is the article you are talking about. LinkI don't see anything in here that would qualify as supernatural. Indeed there seems to be a case being made that we can and are scientifically investigating these areas. If anyone thinks "supernatural" is simply that which is a generation or two of particle accelerators away from being scientifically understood then I would probably qualify as a raging supernaturalist.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I'm afraid there's no way to make it simpler. God knew that your shoulder hurt before you prayed. God could have healed you without your prayer, and you have no way of knowing from this set-up what would have happened had you not bothered to pray. The fact that you prayed and then were healed tells us nothing about whether the prayer was of any importance.You are in pain. You take experimental pain killers. The pain goes away. Is this because the pain killers actually work, is it because your pain just went away naturally, or is it because God healed you? I was talking about the whole of Chapter 6 in its context. But a better and more direct wording would be:

quote:

---

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...

---

Indeed, the inconsistency of the way prayer is proposed to work is surely something that would hamper study, not aid it. We, the participants in this thread. Straggler was proposing we study prayer in a large scale. You proposed that you prayed for shoulder pain to go away and it did.Imagine a drug trial that went like that. They ask 1 person to take their experimental pain killer and then ask 'Did the pain go away?' if the answer is yes, they conclude the pain killer is effective and ship it out. How can they rule out that the person took the pain killer and said a little healing prayer and they were subsequently healed by God not the pain killers?This is in contrast with the way it is actually done: hundreds of people take a pain killer and a control group takes a placebo and the results are compared to see if the experimental pain killer has any effect. This means that the cases where the pain would have gone away anyway will be 'averaged out', and people on both the placebo and the real deal will pray in approximately equal measure, balancing that effect (if any) out. If you want to propose an unpredictable deity, then I say you have an unfalsifiable and potentially unverifiable deity. This means it is not amenable to study, there is no way to know anything about said deity (including its proposed unpredictability) and any claims by anyone to know anything about it are indistinguishable from delusion.Don't worry, I don't consider being delusional a slight on a person's character: I'm delusional. The important point is that there are ways and means to minimise what we are deluded about. Checks and balances of the human mind, so to speak.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Sad isn't it, but I want everyone to remember that it was you that said it and not me. We are talking about studying the supernatural so presumably it has to be something that can be found by creative minds or there is no discussion to be had other than the results of prayer which will; only be based on assumptions anyway. I suppose what I mean is that the natural is the 4.5% of the universe we perceive and can be perceived with our 5 senses. I don't think scientifically understood is the correct term. I think more along the lines of scientifically discovered or accessed would be what I was thinking about.My current belief, that flows from my Christian faith, is that God's heaven is in fact another universe or dimension that is co-located with our own, and that somehow we have emerged with our 4 dimensional existence from something that is more complete, (for lack of a better term), than what we currently experience.Another quote from that article:

quote:

---

A shadow cosmos, woven silently into our own, may have its own rich inner life.

---

I understand this is all conjecture, but I've always believed that science is a natural theology, and if my theology is correct then it has to be compatible with accurate science. Maybe the two will eventually come together through this type of study.My thinking is that at the end of time as we know it, our universe will be brought back into completion by combining it with God's dimension or universe.Incidentally this was my view before reading the article which was the article from SA that you linked. I also realize that the writers of the article were not suggesting anything like what I am, and that what I'm suggesting is highly speculative but I think that it is worth considering.So, in regard to the question being asked, I think that it is possible that science might discover the world of what we call the supernatural and possibly even study it to learn about it, through the use of particle accelerators or whatever else we might come up with. It looks like CERN has already overturned a sacred cow or two. Cheers