What is Supernatural?

We can take this farther.The supernatural is what resides in those gaps in our knowledge.Primitive man posited various spirits to fill the many gaps in their knowledge, and imagined that they could influence those spirits with the correct rituals.Over time those gaps have grown smaller.

---

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

I think I provided a fairly accurate estimate of how the idea of the "supernatural" could have come about, and what it's function was in early cultures. I was not attempting a dictionary definition.Someone who believes in the supernatural would do well to examine the source of that belief as it stretches back into early human history, and see if it is not ultimately related to the unknown, man's need to explain that unknown, and man's attempts to influence the unseen spirits with which he populated that unknown.It appears that that same need is found in many, or even most, people and cultures today even though our greatly increasing knowledge is shrinking the gaps within which the unknown, and those spirits, can reside.

---

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

Here are some definitions which may help:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. (Source)

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Also, the overall approaches of science and ID/creationism differ.Science uses the working assumption of naturalism, and deals with what can be perceived.ID and creationism use the a priori belief that various spirits (supernatural beings) exist, and that they interact in some ways with the natural world and with people.There are significant differences between working assumptions and a priori beliefs. One of the primary ones is that the former are subject to testing and change, while the latter are dogma--you better believe it or else! (e.g., "We don't need no steenkin' evidence!")This brings up two additional definitions:

Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

​

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

And this all goes to establish a clear division between science/reality/the observable/evidence-based and supernatural/belief/dogma/the unobserved/non-evidence based.

---

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

The default position is what can be measured and quantified. That is where all investigation starts.

---

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

If scientists cared about naval-gazing and philosophical musings they wouldn't be called "scientists."

---

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

Lead us, oh enlightened one! (Not another one!) (Unlike yourself?) Sorry to have to tell you this, but you are preaching.You have presented no evidence here, just opinion based on religious belief. Religious belief comes at a dime a dozen, as there are some 4,300 different world religions. There are even some 40,000 different sects, denominations, and flavors of Christianity!And not one of those can show that it is right and the others are wrong using empirical evidence. Otherwise there would not be so many thousands of different beliefs!Further, religious belief has a very poor track record against scientific investigation. Those "gaps" are getting few and far between, and narrower.Now, about those deep questions: What makes you think that you have the TRVTH and everyone else has/is "zero knowledge," "total lack of evidence," "ignorance," "very ignorant," "non-sensical (sic) dogma," and are "tremendously hilarious?"This brings to mind a line from an article I read many years ago:

Save us, dear Lord, from those who would save us.

​

Art Hoppe, On the Death of Robert Kennedy
San Francisco Chronicle, 1968

---

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