Do we have evidence against the supernatural?

By making a statement that " (xyz) *insert your supernatural entity preference here** does not exist". One is committing a fallacy of presumption. "Big foot does not exist."
Since every square meter of the forest on the North American continent has not and can not be simutaneously explored there is a possibility, although remote, such a animal exist.I would like to agree with Nuggin in that the universe and all it contains is natural. But there exist within nature phenomenon that confounds physics and explaination. Does something that can not be explained through scientific methodology define it as supernatural? Are we again reduced to defining our terms and sparing with semantics? In other words, does the existance of something that is beyond the physical laws of nature make it supernatural?Here is my short list of supernatural phenomenon that defys mathmatics and the natural laws of our cosmos.
1. Energy
2. The mind
3. Black holes / singularities
4. abiogenisis
5. randomness / uncertainty principal
6.quantum entanglement
7. gravity
8. Mersenne primes / irrational numbersAs humans continue inquiry and discovery maybe we can someday cross the "super" out of supernatural.

Once again semantics and defining terms reduces the argument to lingustic psycobabble. I propose that things that are supernatural are things that are beyond the physical laws of the universe or mathmatics and are unable to be described, falsified, tested or in anyway explained by any means known to current human inquiry.Therefore: The existance of black holes and singularities are supernatural since physics is limited in it's ability to make sense of this phenomenon which does exist and has been verified by observation within our own galaxy.We can infer a supernatural thing exist by confirming how it affects the universe , but are unable to produce the data or natural laws by which it operates.This does not mean that the phenomenon in question is un-natural, it very well may be. It only means that it appears to defy natural laws, and is hence deemed supernatural. Either by modern science or a tribal pygmy looking at a 50 inch plasma television with surround sound. Your thoughts? **edit spelling errors.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 10-04-2005 04:07 PM

Hello robinrohan, I think that music is a interesting example. First off it is subjective what music is. Some would say that Pantera was not music. Second, if one composes a piece of music, then is the score considered music or does the notes need to be played
in order to be music? Third, I can imagine Bach's Air in G in my mind note for note, tempo, key. I can hear the music in my head.
Is the music real? Is sound required?To me, the term supernatural is a catch all phrase for something that goes beyound our everyday normal/ natural experiance.Ever see the movie: "The gods must be Crazy" ?
In that movie a pilot in a air plane flying low over some African plains throws a empty Coke bottle out of his cockpit.
The indigenous tribes man looks up in the sky and see the plane and picks up the glass bottle and assumes it has come from the god's.Now, you and I both know the Coke bottle is not supernatural..
not to us. But to those primitive people it was.
So it seems the term supernatural is in the eye of the beholder.Now back to music: Nothing that exist is truly corporeal.
Drill down far enough into what composes matter and we end up with probability waves.
Modern theories of the nature of reality are now postulating that perhaps the universe is a symphony of vibrating strings woven into a fabric / membrane. It is the frequencies of the strings that manifest the fundalmental forces that compose this music we call matter.

"He thrust his fist against a post
and insist he's seen a ghost."IT by Stephen KingI am beginning to think that the uncertainty principal prevails on every level of existance. No sooner than I think I understand something does new questions further confound the inquiry.Intellectuals often question how blind faith can be so arrogant as
dismiss science. The answer IMO is ignorance is bliss.Who is smarter? The man who worries about the workings of nature; or the idiot who merrily goes about his way in sublime ignorance reaping the rewards of his hypertensive, nuerotic brethren?Are thoughts material? Are non living things concious?
Does existance depend on an observer?
And how come everytime I think of something I compare it to something else of which I was not thinking of prior to not thinking of it?
"ISSNT DAT VEEERED!!" Gold member from The Spy who Shagged me

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche