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

Hi Tesla,Thanks for the correction, but the contradiction remains. Examine your two sentences again:

1. Nothing is supernatural.
   ​
2. Supernatural phenomena are real.

It doesn't matter what your definition of supernatural is, assuming you're not changing definitions in mid-stream again as with the parrot example. Saying that "Nothing is X" and "X is real" is contradictory. You're misinterpreting this definition, which I think comes from the Oxford American Dictionary. When it says "beyond scientific understanding" it means *forever* beyond scientific understanding, in other words, beyond the ability of science to ever understand. It is not referring to a moving target of the current level of scientific understanding. Notice that it isn't referring to the *known* laws of nature, just the laws of nature.No one in science would ever refer to a natural phenomenon of unknown cause as supernatural. Take a lesson from your psychic friends at the websites you linked to.--Percy

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

I dunno... lets use Faith Healing as an example, with these possibilities:

• God is hearing the prayers and magically healing people - Real supernatural phenomenon.
• People are not being healed at all - no supernatural, no phenomenon
• People are being healed, but its all natural - no supernatural, but real phenomenon

I think that he would be taking the position of the last one, and if so then there isn't really a contradiction.Does that make sense?

Sorry, no, and it doesn't seem consistent with what Tesla is saying, either.--Percy

Hi Tesla,Let's use your definition of the supernatural, that it represents what science doesn't currently understand. Given that definition, how is supernatural ID science supposed to work that is any different from how science already works.--Percy

Why not?I think it does. Its consistant with all this:

quote:

---

I think what you're actually thinking of is events that take place in the natural world but that have a supernatural cause.

​

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.)

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

Like I said:

Hi CS,Thanks for trying to help, but it appears that placing text I've already read into closer juxtaposition isn't making it any more understandable for me.--Percy

Wrong!
Don't you know what the meaning of blue is?
Am I the only one that can speak English here?My parrot IS the colour blue!!
My parrot IS NOT depressed!!Can't you understand English!!?!??!/caricature off.......and that is what your posts have been like.

What's the problem?Some people think that Faith Healing events are totally bunk and nothing is happening at all. Some people think that God is answering prayers. Tesla seems to be thinking that something is actually happening, but that its not something outside the laws of physics.What's so unclear about that?What are you reading that makes you think he's saying something differently?

Then why do you define it as "ignorance"? Supernatural means that it can never be understood through science. This is quite different from your definition which states that it is currently not understood by science. The question in this thread is how supernatural explanations are supposed to work within science. So how does that work? Or can it?

So you are saying that the events, as you described them, really happened? What is fictional about matter bending the path of starlight per the laws of relativity? What is fictional about this matter not absorbing or emitting light? Please explain.

That part is very clear, but weren't you also saying that what I thought was a contradiction isn't actually a contradiction at all? In looking at your Message 288 I was unable to see how your explanation resolved the contradiction.--Percy

The phenomenon are real, and they are described as supernatural because they're currently unexplained, but they actually have natural explanations waiting to be discovered... They're not really supernatural.Contradiction?

The contradiction in inherent. It doesn't matter how you define supernatural. Unless you change the definition between statements 1 and 2, something can't be both real and non-existent.--Percy

The point is that "supernatural phenomenon" are not really supernatural.