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

We wouldn't know, if we are afraid to look for it. Here is one case of something supernatural:CLAIM:- you, or anyone else on Earth, has never had contact with matter. You have never really touched the floor you are sitting on. In fact, you are not sitting in your chair, you are hovering above it. This is so because the electrons in the outer shells of the atoms are never touching, they start to repel each other before and you are actually "flying" 10^-8 cm. above your chair. In fact you have been floating above what you call matter all your life, at 10^-8 cm.Or- those elementary particles that also behave like waves some of the time, they have the ability to observe themselves.Or- the universe that does not expand into anything but into itself.So what is natural? I assert that what you call natural is more ill-defined than "supernatural", because we are supernatural. Even what you obscurely call "emergent property" is another label for just that - the Supernatural.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Is this the first time you hear of physicists trying to find traces/clues about God(the creator)? The so called Mind of God? That's strictly your opinion but it's not a mere case of semantics. It's how you look at the world and whether you realise that "natural" and "supernatural" is one and the same, just viewed through a different religion - atheism or Christianity(or some other religion). If you had an open mind, you'd know that there is no supernatural, just the unknown(but atheists and theists rarely keep an open mind beyond the dogma of the scope of their beliefs). The pursuit of God(whatever that is) is more exhilarating than the pursuit of chaos, randomness and blind chance IMO. If the belief in God does not constitute some sectarian cult, I don't see how it could have a negative effect on science. How do you know which language i am reading quantum physics? Do you think you know everything?(not that i'd be surprised anyway)
All atheists i've seen here get very angry anytime someone brings up the dreaded emergent properties. This is the same with creos that get ferocious when someone finds flaws with the Bible. Way to go!I do find emergent properties Supernatural. If in your material physical world you saw a mosquito eat an elephant, would that constitute a natural emergent property(because it was supposedly observable)? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I view the supernatural and the natural as the same. Unless we have a coherent explanation of existence and reality, I don't think it's a wise idea to force people to believe that we have found all the answers and that everything is quite natural without god's intervention. Whatever defies logic and cannot be explained is supernatural IMO. I am quite against teaching ID in schools, because it carries a kind of burden on children(especially seeing how the world is run and all the atrocities, it doesn't paint a beautiful picture of god).Is what we are yet to uncover - supernatural? Because obviously we aren't in any way aware of it yet. If yes, how is the concept of god, about whom we might or might not find clues, Supernatural? Is the whole human future supernatural, because it's not yet observable? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

So you are basically asking me - what is God? That's a damn good question. But whether science can investige God, well it depends on what science may find(hopefully). If this loosely termed entity(God) is a machine or a computer, or some sort of informational emergent property of some pre-existing medium, why not? How could you know what god is and whether science can find it? You have to be a fortune-teller to know what god is, and i am sure you are not. Right. We don't have the kind of evidence that's necessary in courts. It's only when you look with more scrutiny that you start to see patterns that human logic says are incompatible with atheism. I was talking about atoms becoming self-conscious(aka emergence). Please read what you replied to. Huh? You mean you know how and why we perceive two atoms of H and one atom of O as liquid? Are they really liquid to anyone but to a conscious mind? I am looking forward to seeing your explanation how energy "becomes" water in the conscious mind. You know how energy can fly in flocks? Care to explain this miraculous bit? There is no colour. Colour is an abstraction. No, i am sure you understand quite well what you are being told. That's not the greatest tactic in a debate. OK, i'll pretend that your quoted comment wasn't derogative and will say that "From where I'm standing, it looks like you're naive" or as you say "it would seem like this is so".Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I never implied i knew what god is, i am not religious in any way. Just because i see that evidence and human logic point to some kind of a creator/mind does not mean i imply certainty about what exactly god is. You are right, i knew someone would bite this. This is a subjective feeling. Best? Yes of course, but anyone who is patient and has an IQ greater than 100 can understand the basic principles of quantum theory. There is even "Quantum mechanics for dummies" on Amazon for anyone interested in the basics.What difference does mathematics make for emergent properties of quantum systems?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

If i am not mistaken, you have an account as "NosyNed". So maybe you want to tackle "emergent properties" and not leave an impression that there is something you don't know, that could potentially be considered by some "supernatural".

Yes i know. You'd prefer dealing with dumb YEC's. I did? Really? Are you aware that 2 years ago scientists managed to teleport individual atoms over a distance of 60km.? Are you aware that they think one day they will be able to teleport large classical obejcts by teleporting a large quantity of atoms, including birds? Will they keep their emergent properties? Who knows, maybe they will. But i think it's not scientists who have demonstrated as you say "utter lack of understanding of emergent properties", but you. Would you at least point what makes you believe so? Without an argumentation, this is no better than carrying a slogan in your right hand.