What is Supernatural?

Why refer to someone's position on biological change when discussing the origin of the universe? One does not have anything to do with the other. So which is it, and what is the evidence that supports it? I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Why is it absurd? Because we are curious as to how the universe works and how it came to be. Why can't it be natural?Thunderclouds are necessary for the existence of lightning, so does that mean that thunderclouds are not natural?

Thunderclouds are not a part of the lightning bolt. The lightning bolt can not exist without the thundercloud. The lightning bolt is natural. Therefore, the thundercloud can not be natural.This is your argument in a nut shell. Why couldn't it be natural? Are branes supernatural?

Ignoring the mistaken description of lightning for the moment, this is what you are arguing. You are saying that whatever produces a natural phenomenon has to be supernatural. If lightning is produced by thunderclouds and thunderclouds are outside of lightning then thunderclouds are supernatural. Again, this is the logic of your argument. Quite the opposite. Our universe IS the collision of two branes, if the theory is correct. In that message I argued that, historically, what people described as supernatural was natural phenomenon that they didn't understand.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

What separates the scientist from the philosopher is the second part, the testing of a hypothesis. Is this news to you? I never said that scientists were not philosophical. What I said is that testing hypotheses is what makes them scientists in addition to be philosophical.

That's solipsism. You are saying that we can't believe anything we see, can't understand it, and therefore all answers are equal. Sorry, but that's not a very good way to go about things. Burden of Proof fallacy. It is not up to us to falsify your claims. It is up to you to support your claims. If you want to include "God" then you need to provide evidence of "God". That is not what is happening here. You are arguing that we CAN'T understand the Universe and therefore shouldn't try. Science argues that we CAN understand the Universe, and it tries to do so. Those are the positions being argued here.

We observe the natural. One point for the natural.You are arguing that there is something outside of the natural and within this "outside the natural" there is a being called "God". Where is the evidence for any of this? Where are the observations?It would seem to me that the argument with the least assumptions would be devoid of things for which there is no evidence. That's a solipsism. The problem here is that your "big questions" have no footing in reality. You might as well assert that science is worthless because it can not answer the big question of how reindeer fly.You are inventing these questions from thin air. Actually, not even thin air but from nothing. You are inventing realms and entities for which there is no evidence, and then throwing out methodologies because they fail to explain these inventions.