Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

The inmaterial is inherently immune from investigation.

The problem is the OP. As alluded to seems circular. If one states that anything that occurs in the universe is by definition natural, then adding "super-natural" seems silly to me.If I say god is a natural part of the universe. That would defeat the premise that god is "apart" from the universe.So to get around that one can conjure a god that prevades the universe and is also a intrinsic part of it. Hence super natural.Therefore I contend that the concept of god can be the only truly supernatural thing. (If one uses the Judeo-Christian concept of a self existing, uncreated manifested reality.) And everything else, material or inmaterial is natural and a extention of said god.Which of course brings us full circle eh? .

Hello Strag! First perhaps you can show me the physical detection of something a little less supernatural, say dark matter perhaps?

quote:

---

Phi writes:Therefore I contend that the concept of god can be the only truly supernatural thing. (If one uses the Judeo-Christian concept of a self existing, uncreated manifested reality.) And everything else, material or inmaterial is natural and a extention of said god.

---

Sweet. But I am pretty sure you call that alot so it seems empty. I liked your "bullshit" retort better. Less wordy, just as crass. Has the Supernatural Hypothesis failed? Yes. imo thoses two words do not belong in the same sentence.

[/qs] Can I quote you? "Bullshit"Edited by 1.61803, : organization

Hypothesis is, if memory serves a fundamental tenant of scientific inquiry.The Supernatural is the anathema of science imo. Never the twain shall meet.

Uploaded with ImageShack.usHas the Supernatural hypothesis failed?EXAMPLE of Supernatural Hypothesis not failing.I am a ancient Jewish man who hypothesizes:
People who eat pork die of some disease.
_od must not want us to eat pork, it is unclean.
No one is dying from this disease now.My supernatural hypothesis is chock full of win juice, _od must be happy!Edited by 1.61803, : added Ace Ventura

I give you an example of a religious man hypothesizing and you respond
with a fallicious argument reductio ad absurdum.I told you in my opinion formulating a hypothesis is how scientific inquiry is performed. Nothing to do with invoking the gods or the supernatural.I think we are hung up on a word. Hypothesis. Then we get hung up on the word supernatural.Science is silent on matters concerning religion. But that still does not mean some scientist will be silent, ie: Stephen Hawking. btw has basically just went back to shave with Occams Razor. I do not for a moment think supernatural claims equate to science. Do you? If you do then that may be the fly in the ointment.For the record, saying a ghost moved a glass is not science. It is para science, psuedo science. See the prefixes mate?
Please mind your step around those double deckers now.

Hello Nij, It appears that way doesn't it. However, it was perfectley clear to me in my head. And lacking in the transmission from mind to pen. What I as commenting on, not arguing. Is how can something fail if it is already moot.
Pleading to the supernatural to explain anything is a nonstarter imo.

So are we divided into 2 camps now.Camp 1. The supernatural is supernatural.Camp 2. The supernatural is supernatural.

Numbers writes:
Pleading to the supernatural to explain anything is a nonstarter imo. Different because the supernatural is supernatural.QM theory can show that the pen your so fond of dropping in thought experiments can, in theory, quantum tunnel through your fingers.My dear Watson, Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.Except maybe it is impossible to eliminate all possibilities imo.

Dude, If you do not deny the possibilty of the existance of the supernatural. How can you deny the possibility it can influence reality? Which is to say if you dont discount the supernatural then wtf are you going around saying it has no basis to be able to predict or explain anything? Contradiction?Thats like saying, Has the existence of green fairies in my Absinthe failed to move my glass.Edited by 1.61803, : added italic

Heh, I do not believe in the existence of green fairies. Therefore do not believe it is sensible to comtemplate they can move my glass. It is not a hypothesis that has failed. It is your equvocating science with psuedo science that has failed. imo.

This part: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

So you keep saying.
I told you from my first comment that if a supernatural god that prevades the universe and all natural laws would be beyond the realm of explaination. But nnnOOOnnnooooooooyou had to keep digging.

Well according to some religious dogma, it is not that God is imperceptible, more other than a intergral part of the universe and yet still beyond the universe. I personally believe that if something occurs within the universe then it is natural. I can not comment on what may lie beyond or prevade this cosmos. It is unknowable. imo.