Supernatural vs. Scientifically Unproven

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big B:
I was just wondering what people's views on this were. Is supernatural a possible synonym for scientifically unproven? People have said that bigfoot, UFO's and the like are supernatural, but so were giant squids and the northern lights before science proved their existence was real. In the case of squids there wasn't a lot of physical evidence (at least no more than there is for bigfoot or UFO's) until recently. So, is it really acceptable to flat out reject something based on it being 'supernatural'? I say this, because it seems as though there is some close-mindedness out of the materialist camp. Since things like souls or God can't be proven by science (yet) then the possibility is rejected. This seems like the similar arguement that is frequently used against Christians (or any other religion for that matter). Basically everything is molded around a preconceived set of values for how the world operates. In the case of Christians people try to mold science around the Flood, etc. and in the case of materialist there can be no such thing as OBE's, NDE's, or ESP. So, does supernaturalism have to be reduced as phenoma that is 'miraculous' or can it simply be in defiance of certain principles we currently know about physics?

---

There is a difference between the philosophy of Naturalism, in which it is stated that "nature is all there is", and the tenets of scientific investigation. These tenets make no comment upon the supernatural, because, by definition, the supernatural is "outside nature", so therefore cannot be detected by natural means.Science does not deny the possibility of God, or ESP, or what have you. It does, however, require reliable positive evidence which is observable by anyone.If, let's say, Theraputic Touch practitioners were able to feel Emily Rosa's hand hovering over theirs better than chance would predict, then I would pay attention, and want to do lots more tests.However, the nurses did worse than chance would predict. In truth, the only reason they agreed to be tested was because it was a little girl's science fair project and they never dreamed that the results would make it into JAMA.http://www.quackwatch.com/...ryRelatedTopics/ttresponse.htmlSo in summary, science says, "There is no evidnece for X, so no determination can be made."This is very different from saying, "X is impossible."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by allen:
[B]Brad.
That was beautiful..and a little humerous to read..but in all a round
about way..you are very right in your post..not only are the old things regenerated as the new..i admitt old cellular is the means of the new groups who do come around with the dialer effect not withstanding the manual typing at hand..tho i do agree with you fully,
finally an adult answer.[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!!!Not that Brad is not "adult" in his replies, but...LOL! [QUOTE]Quit right in that lost are the things of old covered by the new that compute the young of today generally a diagnosis of : what me worry sapping of the minds is melay to an extinguishing effect!.. lol.

quote:

---

What kind of stream of consciousness beat poetry is this supposed to be?

​

[QUOTE]please dont get me wrong...but supernatural is just something we cannot in effect interact with..but yes supernatural is as it will be,but not as it would be in the minds of professors and graduates that hone the capture of the supernatural at the aspect of losing ones mental being notwithstanding a long saturday night at the bar..pink elephants as i suppose is the outcome of possible reflections of your own experiances as if on an angry ocean tossing to and fro...lol please dont get me wrong..but the supernatural does line in the cognitive. um er eh...oh yes..ahhhhh
ahummmmmm ....pardon me i have gas...as your post so generates its flux flo . get real..a supernatural effect is not the same as a supernatural quantum effect graduated by the humerousness that you expell flagulantly. good day.[/B]

---

nutter.