So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

I do not think that Creationism is science. My belief is that without scientist accepting the potential of a supreme consciousness that dictated the laws of nature: scientists will blind themselves from potential discoveries.I believe this way because it is a potential truth.But...Supernatural science already exists. It is mostly for entertainment these days. Like ghost hunters etc. there is still research being done on psychic ability. The findings so far show that those who believe they can see a card they cannot, have a greater success rate at their guesses than those who don’t.There has to be a natural explanation as to why. We just haven’t asked the right questions, or we are not currently able to see what makes this possible.Anyways, that’s my take on this topic.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Political losses of freedoms as a whole are at fault for this diminution in my opinion. More and more government and education officials have decided what is best for the population against the definition of Liberty as understood in the essay 'On Liberty' by J.S. Mill.As far as the forum:I believe there is more attack on any belief of supernatural than true exploration of possibilities with open minded debates of intelligent people.Supernatural is only considered supernatural until the events the supernatural beliefs are based on are understood. Now tell me: How can we come to a natural understanding of supernatural events if the greatest minds will not even examine the events?You may want to argue: science cannot examine supernatural events. And I’ll agree to the extent that "science does not have enough understanding NOW. But with time, we could.I believe many ID proponents have met this barrier of inability to explain or discuss the events they have experienced outside of circles of individuals who do not hold the same ideologies because of the close-mindedness of opposing beliefs.Consider this though: Many religions hold the same base ideals with different names for 'God' and different methods of honoring [God].Atheistic scientists may have reached the top simply because their ideology matched the ideologies of those who held the financial power to their research. And what scientist will be able to research without funding? Or perhaps they chose a safer science to research with greater chance of success, but with smaller impact of the discovery as the risk takers reaching too far from current technological abilities who inevitably fail?The reason I have been absent so long is because I met with some very hard resistance initially, which included unfair banning’s from topics for posts not near as off topic, nor near as vulgar as posts others and myself received. The difference was who the moderator agreed with on the topic.I always planned to return when I was more informed and able to debate the issues that are debated here, but still have not started a topic, because; in the past, very few of my topics were allowed to be discussed.You want a more active forum? You have to allow the people who come here a chance to debate what they are wishing to debate. Not just what you decide is worthy of debate.I have always believed that people debating such topics as this might lead to that ‘great discovery moment’ of a scientist in their field.[and this is] because of some creationist who offers an explanation or poses a question that would associatively inspire discovery ( Even if it wasn't a discovery even relevant to the discussion.)Let me ask you for an honest opinion: How do you view me based on my postings? What is your true opinion?And then: how does that opinion affect how you reply to me?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

The sun was once considered supernatural and was exposed. Message 453 of 'inductive atheism' in the faith and belief forums is a discussion of 'supernatural' and its sources. Message 453 includes this link: http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.htmlCurrently understood 'supernatural' events are already explored by science, yet little discovery has been made due to limitations in science. The ‘limits’ of science. The same way all science is researched. a thesis becomes a theory, a theory becomes research, and the limits of science dictate discovery. as science continues to grow in knowledge the truth of supernatural events and behaviors can be discovered.However, with no exploration, nothing can be discovered.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You’re implying everything that exists must be in your face evident before it can be researched? If that was the case science would have progressed very little.Read the link.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Which are all potentially true; when science understands consciousness on levels beyond our current understanding.Which means: these supernatural things are no more supernatural than any other supernatural thing, which is simply an event beyond the understanding of current science.You can claim Gods are just imagined: with no proof, and still turn out to be wrong about that in the next 2000 years.I believe it is time for every one of you to really examine this word and what it truly means.Here is a thought experiment: a creature appears in your room, and eggs float through your refrigerator door, grabs your couch and eats it and then disappears; what do you call that? Supernatural.now let’s say science has found out that there truly are alternate realities that exist alongside ours, only divided by the speed of known time (i.e. faster than the speed of light), and that an entity from that space-time broke through the barrier (for just an instant) into this one, and grabbed the only item within reach for his limited existence in our space time, and then subsequently was destroyed attempting to return to its own.Ok. That would be a Supernatural happening, natural to the laws of physics when science understands how it works.Is this scenario likely? No. possible? could be, who knows? no one that’s the point.Everyone needs to understand the word supernatural before anyone can have a meaningful conversation concerning things considered supernatural. Because: things that were explained supernatural become natural when understood. Hence the literal definition: BEYOND current scientific ability to understand.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Read the link I posted jar!

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

by all definitions that is a pretty good word to describe it. The events are not fictional. our ability to explain supernatural events can be considered fictional. But so can: dark matter, big bang theory, string theory, chaos theory, and any other theory not proven. No, it means something that cannot be explained by known science and laws of physics, and appears to ignore what we know of reality.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Let me guess, nobody on this site understands the definition of the word supernatural?supernatural/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.You wonder why interest in this debate site is waning? because instead of intelligent debate you get ridiculous bickering.I guess you also believe that science has unlocked all the mysteries of the universe?Or do you consider supernatural to only to mean things that science will never understand because there not real? I think that word is: fiction.There have been numerous supernatural ideas attributed to what we now call natural phenomenon. Do you think that things considered supernatural today will ever be exposed to the truth of the events and called natural as well?Oh no I get ityou believe all supernatural things will be explained as imagination. Or some other explainable reason that fits your ideology. The truth of that is yet to be seen. And until it is seen, you’re just another human using dogmatism to support your own ideology so you can sleep at night.No? Sorry if I seem a little disgruntled. I have been arguing the definition of supernatural for two days and I am now convinced no one here understands English. I will however save parts of these debates to discuss with my professors who at least seem to be able to understand definitions.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You’re wrong. Supernatural phenomenon is being studied in a scientific fashion in an attempt to understand the phenomenon.ASSAP educationand more: ASSAP links to other paranormal siteshttp://www2.lib.udel.edu/subj/psyc/resguide/parapsyc.htmCheck it out, most scientists are afraid to touch 'supernatural' research openly this one did:WordPress › Error You’re wrong. I believe the lack of science to explain supernatural phenomenon only means science is limited. Anything true will be natural to the laws of physics. (But we don't understand all the laws of physics yet.)
This doesn’t mean a lot isn’t faked. A lot is. But some isn’t. And that’s why it’s such a big deal to so many. Nothing say’s ‘holy sheet’ like a personal experience.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Then we agree that nothing is supernatural. The point I’m making is supernatural phenomenon is real, but is beyond the abilities of current science to explain. There first has to be validation of the actual phenomenon before any scientist can begin looking for how the phenomenon works.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

If someone tells me what it is I personally believe I reserve the right to correct them.As far as doing scientific research beyond the limits of science: how can you? It’s beyond your abilities. One day you might be able to. What I believe would be healthy for the scientific community and for all of mankind is for science to remain open to the possibilities until it is understood. Instead, the majority of scientists and professors choose to ignore the potential all together. That is not science. That is a personal belief.When science has figured out how to record thoughts and read thoughts by whatever the brain does to interpret and read them, only then can more work could be done towards that end.Understanding consciousness is the first task.Edited by tesla, : elaboration.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

A lesson in English:A phenomenon (from Greek o), plural phenomena or phenomenons, is any observable occurrence.supernatural/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.Supernatural phenomenon: An observable occurrence, attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.I said exactly what I meant, with the exception of meaning: nothing true is truly outside of the laws of true physics; it is only supernatural because current science cannot explain it. (When I said: nothing is supernatural). The reason I said Nothing is supernatural is because the word is generally used here in the way that it means Truly impossible to all laws of true physics First: admit the occurrences.Second: look for explanations within scientific means.Third: note any occurrences not explainable.Fourth: form a hypothesis. (Try to identify what technology or ability or knowledge science would need to have before the phenomenon could be explained. ie : understand consciousness as it physically is communicated, be it: read and interpret brain waves, cell interpretation of chemicals, how the brain stores and reads cognitive function etc.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

That depends on the reader.My parrot is blue: depressed
My parrot is not blue: [My parrot] is not the color blue.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I believe I clarified the contradiction. All that remains is for you to understand it. I cannot force you to recognize what I am saying. With this mentality, the moon would have always remained green cheese. Since in older times, it was a commonly held belief that science would never allow man to reach the capabilities to explain celestial objects. Were they not once held in common belief to be from supernatural origins?What is happening here is a butting head of beliefs, not science. Science reinforces the position that it will evolve to greater understanding. You can choose to believe as you wish. You might even rename currently held 'supernatural' phenomenon’s into the realm of natural and worthy of study as science progresses.Either way, why should I expect you to change your belief? You won’t. You’ll just be dogmatic and butt heads with those who don't agree with you. But you will not be able to convince anyone else that their belief is any more wrong than yours, and it will hardly aid science in understanding currently misunderstood events beyond our current understanding of physics.Doing that isn’t any different than someone who has chosen to believe in a personal savior.I can politely bow out of the conversation knowing that it is impossible to debate with individuals blind and dumb to any scrutiny that goes against the beliefs they have chosen to defend at any cost, regardless of the truth.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

LMAOYour cute when your angry.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides