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

Define supernatural. You insist that IDers are introducting the concept of supernaturalism or some such. What is that concept?In reality, IDers are looking for physical evidence of a Designer's actions and mechanisms. Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You conveniently didn't answer the question which is a very pertinent question. First of all, answering from a biblical perspective and a scientific perspective are 2 different things. You may argue that God from a biblical perspective is a spiritual or supernatural thing. That has nothing to do with a scientific description of the concept of God. As far as science is concerned, if something is real, it is by definition a natural thing within the confines, at least theoritically, of science though science is limited by technology and creativity. You cannot test something until you figure out a way to do it with existing technology.So from a science perspective, the concept of God means by definition God is natural, or put another way, if God is real, then God is natural just like any other thing.....from a scientific perspective.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Wrong. If God exists, then He is part of reality and so the concept of God is actually natural from a scientific perspective. You can blather on about no way to test or whatever, but that's just your opinion. You have absolutely no evidence to support your claim that we cannot ever come up with some way to test for God's presence or activity or an aspect of God. In fact, there are scientists like Tipler who believe as he argues in his book, The Omega Point, that we absolutely do have scientific and mathematical evidence for God.You can disagree with him and his evidence, but to pretend it's not based on science would be silly. Not saying he is right or wrong, but it is science.

So you appeal to the Bible to answer a simple scientific question on the definition of supernatural?Can you state where the Bible defines the term "supernatural" from a scientific perspective?Hmmm.....I would say from a scientific perspective, anything that is real, including God and anything considered "spiritual" or "supernatural" is by definition, from a scientific perspective, natural. To claim otherwise is simply to try to win an argument via semantics.As far as the Bible, God is presented as real and interactive with the physical world. If the "supernatural" exists, from a science perspective, it is part of the real and therefore natural world.The Bible also depicts the spiritual world and spiritual principles as intertwined with the physical world and not something altogether unconnected.

Few points:1. Can you show where the Bible defines "supernatural" in a manner relevant to the discussion?2. Science does not define natural by what is testable or observable as you claim. The idea is what is potentially observable. If the technology or means to experimentally verify something have not been developed yet, that doesn't mean something is not natural. It just means science currently lacks the technology or creativity to test something.3. You seem to fall back on the idea that something is supernatural if it is "physically impossible" but if something occurs, then by definition it is possible. So that's not a good argument on your part.4. You cite the Flood but contradict yourself by saying that science has been able to rule that out. Besides the point that plenty of people do seek to explain the Flood using science, the very fact it is, according to you, a testable concept which you claim has been refuted demonstrates your argument is wrong. If the concept can be disproven by science, then it can be proven. It is therefore testable by science.5. On your comment on God, you are falling back on semantics. If God is real, then you cannot argue God cannot be considered a force or causal for anything. Your argument amounts to classifying God, a theological doctrine I might add, as a means to discount a priori God as causal.6. Moreover, there is ample evidence for God. The experience of millions of people attests to it. Just because you prefer to ignore that evidence, and the fact science has not figured out how to test for God's presence and activity, does not mean it is impossible to do so. It could be, but that would be a theological argument, not a scientific one. Science has taken up the challenge to explore people's reports on many issues. Simply saying it cannot be done with something spiritual or aspects of God is silly.7. I'll close with a thought. Medical science has from time to time confirmed medical miracles during certain sorts of revival meetings. The healings are considered miracles because they cannot be explained by normal medicine. Once when taking a woman's study class, for example, with a liberal, professor from Duke, the point was brought up in a paper that miracles during the controversial Aimmee Simple McPhearson's meetings were confirmed by doctors that were skeptics intent on showing her to be a charlatan. Whereas they could not confirm her personal character, they certainly confirmed the miracles. You can say that's not applicable if you want but for those that have experienced such miracles, it's quite obvious that God is real and His biblical principles are effectual, at least some aspect of them. That doesn't mean the whole Bible is true, and I would agree that's a matter of faith.Then again, so is the claim that it's not true.I guess what I am saying is all the evidence points to God being real and so having faith in that is supported by evidence whereas having faith God is not real is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Just labelling God "supernatural" without realizing that is only a term applicable in theology and not science is a poor argument on your part. From a biblical perspective, the spiritual is intertwined with the physical, so much so that we live in a spiritual world as much as a physical one.

So you agree with me then that the Bible does not define God supernaturally in a manner consistent with claims that God is a scientifically untestable or unknowable concept in all aspects?Good. So can we move on from trying to use that argument to claim ID has to come up with supernatural explanations?

There are a number of ways to test for aspects of the spiritual realm and God, imo. I wouldn't think all aspects of God are testable but the part about where God interacts to do things in the universe are likely testable.IDers currently believe in doing that via forensic analysis. I am sure you read the paper?What you may be asking is, Ok, how about a mechanism? First I would say that plenty of theories including Darwin's have come about without a real mechanism explained.Nevertheless, in this case, I would look to spiritual mechanisms as a hypothesis and classify a number of spiritual principles widely accepted in various traditions and then look to see if in the study of an area such as physics, these principles apppear to be reflected in the study of how the world works, and in fact, though outside the scope here, this is already being done as many aspects of QM imo dovetail spiritual principles in a manner indicating they are the same sort of mechanism. Keep in mind the term "spiritual" from a biblical perspective does not mean imaginary or outside of one's daily experience or the universe. It is a realm invisible to the naked eye, sure, but at the same time, the Bible speaks of this realm as seeming counter-intuitive to a physical perspective best described as more a classical physics perspective. In other words, dig a little deeper into the world we see with our eyes and you can find principles that seemingly contradict or work a little differently than what most might think of as common sense.There is also work from men like Tipler in his book the Omega point, just as one example, of scientists publishing theories that point or "prove" the existence of God in some sense of another.

The term God is a term like spiritual in that it predates science. Your argument seems to be that if a term predates science, it cannot be used in discussion.Did the real world exist prior to modern science?I would say that it did. How about you?So we have a proposition that the universe consists in part of realms or dimensions or properties that men have called "spiritual." If you think somehow using science to see if physics and science has delved into this realm is wrong, then once again you are making a circular fallacious argument.You asked for how to test for aspects of God or mechanisms that God might use, and I answered you, and then you say no answer is no answer is possible.