We test for God by studying design, simple as that. That's a clear-cut way to test for God. The simple fact is the universe exhibits principles and design at it's foundation, and as such, is best understood as the result of an Intelligent Cause.
This is such a subjective method of enquiry, it’s next to useless. You have absolutely no basis for comparison.
As far as invoking supernatural forces, no one is doing that. In fact, it is quite clear that we are postulating a natural force.
Yet there is absolutely no firm evidence for this natural force. You are by every standard definition invoking a Supernatural force.
If God has done something in the natural world, then God by definition or the part of God that has done something is by definition natural and not supernatural and so you are completely wrong to assert anyone is making a claim of something supernatural.
Tell me, why do accident investigators rule out supernatural forces in their lines of inquiry? What about Doctors, detectives, weather forecasters? Just because you vehemently strive to avoid the distinction, doesn’t mean that it isn’t palpably clear to others.
In fact, by definition a supernatural thing cannot act in the natural world, and if a force does act in the natural world, it is natural and not supernatural by definition.
Until you adequately test, observe and verify this supernatural entity/force, it is absolutely logical to reserve it for the supernatural realm
So you say, but that's mere ignorance on your part, if not buffoonery. The truth is ruling out a plausible explanation a priori will automatically render science useless in any area that the explanation is true for.
I think you’re being intentionally obtuse. How do you propose we preserve the critical method of enquiry in science if such nebulous supernatural entities are available as explanations? Again, why are accident investigators, doctors, detectives (etc.) given a free pass at limiting their fields of enquiry to natural causes (i.e. No Demons, angels etc.). Are they being negligent? Do you go to your nearest faith healer when you’re feeling ill, instead of a qualified doctor?
Plus, once again, considering the actions of God is in no way asserting a supernatural force as far as scientific definitions. it is the assertion of something that occurred in nature in the universe itself, as the causal effects are real and can be studied.
See above
Nope. You fail to realize you have offered a false definition of supernatural. Whether something can be tested for has nothing to do with whether something is natural or supernatural, but simply has everything to do with our level of technology.
Ok, I propose that there is an invisible creature called Zog living in the middle of your living room. It exists, yet is undetectable by our current technology. There is absolutely no evidence that it interacts with the natural world as we know it. Do you think it would be rational to invoke Zog to explain natural phenomena?
Definitions such as this should be defined by what something is regardless of our levels of technology, and as such, you have offered a false definition of a term. If things can become natural and maybe if we go backwards technologically, they can become supernatural, then the term is meaningless as far as a discussion as this because all you are describing is our level of technology and awareness, not a fundamental property of something within the potential scope of science.
No objective evidence exists for the existence of such entities/forces, hence they should be dismissed in any critical investigation. Otherwise we’d get absolutely nowhere. The burden of responsibility is on you to demonstrate that such supernatural entities exist. The problem with your dubious reasoning is that there are an infinite number of such supernatural entities/forces that could exist, how do you propose we have a critical, rational methodology in science once it is forced to take the supernatural into account. How would it not turn into senseless mysticism? How could we have any sort of successful investigation?
Again, why do accident investigators dismiss such supernatural entities in their line of enquiry? Until someone can demonstrate hard evidence, they either don’t exist or are supernatural.
You contend? OK, please substantiate your contentions. Making baseless charges means nothing, and that's exactly what you are doing, making baseless charges.
Please, I don’t have time for such puerile tomfoolery. If you’re not prepared to sincerely read through my posts and reply constructively, I’m not interested in carrying this discussion on further. As I mentioned numerous times, once your tenuous supernatural entities are available as explanations for science, it all descends to mindless mysticism. You cannot have a critical method of enquiry of any sort once such dubious supernatural explanations are given equal consideration. It gets us absolutely nowhere. How can you have a rational methodology with your brand of mysticism?
So you agree, but insist science must by definition insist on false explanations; must ignore the truth on how something happened if, by golly, it means God could have been involved.
The problem is neither you nor me can objectively demonstrate the existence of God. I’d love to do it. Until then, it’s just as foolhardy to appeal to God to explain natural phenomena in a rigorous investigation as it to invoke Zog. Further, when is it valid to appeal to the supernatural? When is it not? You cannot have a critical methodology with your brand of mysticism.
Doesn't corrupt science as a mechanism for understanding physical reality?
It appears by the way that you are failing to see how QM redefined "material" to be first and foremost an immaterial state.
As far as science, I am not asserting it brings us absolute truth. I am asserting putting up bogus barriers with poorly defined terms based on an outdated paradigm of what constitutes material is wrong.
The barriers are there for a very sensible reason - for the sake of a successful and rigorous investigation. Once science is forced is to pay heed to the supernatural, it turns into mysticism. Why do you suspect accident investigator, weather forecaster, doctors, detectives (etc.) don’t appeal to the supernatural in their lines work?
I go where the evidence leads. By your own admission, your brand of science must ignore where the evidence leads if that evidence leads to a suggestion of an Intelligent Cause.
A subjective, non-scientific interpretation of the evidence. As I said, once science has firm, objective evidence for God, then only then can it appeal to God to provide explanations of the natural world.
Edited by Isana Kadeb, : correction
Edited by Isana Kadeb, : No reason given.
Edited by Isana Kadeb, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
