Summations Only

Again that is just a nonsense question.We can investigate an event or entity but can never investigate any supernatural aspect of the event.

Again, no where in that are you studying the supernatural, you are simply studying the natural world result.

How do you know that it is "a supernatural leprechaun"?

So then how are you studying the supernatural?

But those are two different things.You can study a small man wearing green that has a pot of gold.But you made a claim that you put a supernatural leprechaun on a scale and measured its weight.I am asking you how you know you put a supernatural leprechaun on the scale?

But you made the claim.Now with your artifact example you can bring in folk to examine it and they can determine that from what is seen it is or was a bone.But you are claiming that you put a supernatural leprechaun on the scale and I am asking, "How do you know that?"

You continue making claims as in "The object put on the scale is a leprechaun, regardless of what I think, know, claim or conclude."How do you know it is a leprechaun?As long as what you put on the scale is "subject A" and you don't then make a claim that it is a leprechaun all is fine. You have shown no basis yet though for the assertion that it is a leprechaun.

Subject A can be tested for those things which are natural.How do you test those things which are supernatural?

How do you test anything that is not natural?

Sorry but how do you determine "Subject A has an attribute that is supernatural"?AbE:And no, in the example nothing recorded is supernatural.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

First about your example.What you recorded is not the supernatural act but rather the very natural result of it.Now back to the subject.You have not shown any supernatural things tested.

I have no idea or an idea of how that could be tested, as this and many other threads should make clear. Well I could eat the cake and say that the cake was real and very natural, but all I could say about the "magic pixie dragon flew out of Gondor" is that it was something I cannot explain. Nope. It's unexplained.

Let me reply to both this and the preceding post at the same time.No, you are not studying the supernatural and you have not shown any hint that you are studying the supernatural.You are studying something and you can record any natural facts evidenced there, but you have not shown any example of studying anything supernatural.I think the difference between your position and mine will remain as a definitional issue but I will try yet again to create an example that might help.You can watch a magician (entertainer) and record his every move including all of the preparation that went before performing the trick. Perhaps that will provide enough evidence to understand how the magic trick was created; but that is not studying magic.

Again even with the leprechaun you are not studying the supernatural. You are still just studying the natural aspects of some object.

But what I have that can be tested is a cake. I can chemically analyze it and even tell what components went into it. The cake is completely normal.Now the source is "unknown" and that's about all we can say about that. Unknown is a very broad term and yes, something supernatural is also unexplained. But considering what humans can say they know or can study, all that I can say about GOD is "Yes, God is unexplained and I see no way I can study God".That GOD exists and is also supernatural is a belief and at least as long as I am alive I cannot imagine any way that I could ever test or study GOD or anything that is truly supernatural.