Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Indeed - but possibility has the implication of being possible (which we don't know). It's a great refuge for the equivocator. If the two are being used synonymously (which they seem to be) then the unfalsified has less ambiguity.And it also draws attention to the unfalsifiable.

Those are indeed supernatural claims. They invoke a supernatural explanation for some aspect of the universe.In the case of a young earth, a person is invoking God to explain away the amazingly precise relations between different independent dating methods that indicate an old earth.
In the case of a global flood, a person is invoking God to explain away the evidence that a global flood did not happen.
In the case of lightning caused by a deity, the use of a deity in the explanation makes it inherently supernatural. This also applies to the first two cases.
In the case of the evil spirits hypothesis of disease, we are invoking a supernatual entity to explain an aspect of biological life.It is not the fact that these attempt to explain the universe. It is the fact that they do so using or involving a supernatural entity which makes them supernatural.
So yes, these are supernatural claims. And yes, they are also wrong. But those two properties are not related.

Science only permits natural explanations. It has no way of dealing with supernatural ones.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Ever tried explaining yourself to a worm?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Why wouldn't the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and communication be able to be applied to potentially supernatural phenomenon? Be specific. If science has no way of dealing with the supernatural then how would scientists even recognize the supernatural to be able to say "oops, supernatural! Better not try science this time."Let's say that one obtuse scientist doesn't get the memo and tries to apply the scientific methods of investigation to Mentok, the Mind-Taker:widely recognized for his swingin' dinner parties, sharp judicial acumen, and of course his supernatural powers of mental domination.Explain precisely what goes wrong when science is applied to this supernatural phenomenon. Be specific.

Huh? The use of a god means nothing.a. "The Earth is 4.5 million years old." = natural
b. "The Earth is 3 million years old." = natural
c. "The Earth is 2 million years old." = natural
d. "The Earth is 6000 years old." = supernatural? Why does our classification system change simply based on the input value? These are all simply statements on the natural world, and yet you seem to think claim (d) is supernatural because...?Furthermore, a claim on the cause of a natural phenomenon is by default natural—no matter what the cause posited.Let me ask you this: Before investigating a claim, are you able to determine if it is supernatural? If so, how do you do this?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Because there is absolutely no way to arrive at that 6,000 year age estimate for the earth from natural phenomena.The only way to arrive at that age is from religious belief (i.e., belief in the supernatural).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So it is because the claim has been scientifically 'disproven'?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.The claim has been made on the basis of religion, stemming from a belief in the supernatural. There is no other way to arrive at that claim because...The age of the earth has been established by multiple measurements and observations at far older than 6,000 years.That evidence disproves the claim of supernaturalists based on religious belief for an age of about 6,000 years.That is very simple.If the supernaturalists could make claims, stemming from scripture, dogma, revelation, etc., for a wide range of natural phenomena, and if those claims could be verified by evidence and observations, then that would be evidence for the supernatural. However, the opposite has happened, time after time.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Good, because I don't want you to. I just want you to answer the questions. I've sent many your way that you refuse to address.Furthermore, your 'explanation' also didn't answer my question... any of them in fact.Again:Why is it supernatural? Is it supernatural because: "The age of the earth has been established by multiple measurements and observations [as] far older than 6,000 years."?AND What makes you think these things stem from the supernatural? How do you decide when a claim has been made on the basis of supernatural notions? What are your criteria for determining the supernatural?ANDHow are you defining supernatural?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Let me put it into baby talk. The claims for a young earth and global flood are made by biblical literalists. Nobody else makes such claims. Biblical literalists make the claims because they read about them in the bible, which they believe is inerrant. The bible is inerrant, they believe, because it was written directly by a supernatural deity. Therefore, those claims, based on the supernatural, must be accurate. No such thing.And I'll not be replying to these same useless questions again.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

LOL. Okay... I'll assume you're just using the "drop it from my ass and see if it floats" criterion, unless you can show clearly how you differentiate supernatural from non-supernatural claims... without using the word supernatural, of course.ABE: How do you know?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Apparently.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.Edited by Omnivorous, : iPhonitis

Too sad. Anything of value to add, or are you going to stick with the fundamentalist name-calling strategies?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James