Studying the supernatural

First off, just because YOU say Nuggin has a valid point doesn't mean anything. He took what I said and twisted it around.GDR did a great job of explaining to the person what I actually meant so there was no need to respond to him the same exact thing. It has nothing to do with "because you aren't up to it" incidently. Also GDR felt that that person was coming across rather disingenuous too. I understand why tho you feel the need to try and belittle me. It's par the course for you here.If ever you construct a post that isn't at all condescending flavored with arrogance with a hint of humility it will be a first.As for understanding the posts I make, I perfectly understand what it is I said to Straggler. Thanks kindly tho.As for getting my facts straight, OBVIOUSLY I know what abiogenesis is! In fact if you read my post it says "most sciences" aren't interested in origins (I was using the TOE as one example). I thought that would imply abiogenesis was in play as ONE of the sciences that DOES seek answers for our origins.Anyway, Percy im sure is elated you took up for him here with the likes of me. I don't try and go around here like I know everything. I think it's obvious I do not.It's also obvious that you think you know it all. Who even knows what in the frikking world that even means. If you want to come over you can watch me pray anytime. Bring your pen and notepad.I have prayed for certain things that most certainly have been answered. I seriously doubt you would say it was due to prayer as you would call it a coincidence. So save displaying your pious attitude for someone else. Yep, likewise. Yep, likewise.

It means you can setup experiments which involve people praying for certain outcomes and then measure whether or not the actual outcomes being prayed for occur to an extent that is statistically significant in comparison to the same occurance when not prayed for.Hopefully that clears that up for you..... More simply - What it means is that the effects pf praying can actually be compared to the effects of not praying to see if praying really does work in the way people claim it does.Even more simply - The effects of prayer are testable.

Im not good with trick questions so i'll do my best. If i falter I hope you'll show me some mercy. Hmmm. I do not no. Im not sure they are trying to disprove anything SN. Maybe some people say they are or maybe some actually are but the actual Scientists (save Dawkins) are probably not. Would a full understanding of abiogenesis if explained eliminate a theistic view for me. No, why would it?Straggler, im not saying science is evil, im saying it is content in explaining the natural means about how certain things work.To me tho, just because something is explained doesn't mean the SN is refuted. Why would it? YES. Why not? If we were not created from something SN then Science should have no problem explaining how we got here. Right?What's the hold up?

So - To be clear - No matter how evidenced or predictively powerful a naturalistic explanation is you consider a supernatural explanation for the same phenomenon to be equally valid?Thor is as valid an explanation for thunder and lightning as static electricity?Undetectable flight gnomes are just as likely to be responsible for aeroplanes flying as are the principle of fluid dynamics pertaining to air flow?Etc.Or is that not what you meant. If so what did you mean?

No. I didn't say THAT. I said the SN could be BEHIND the explanation. Causing it to work the WAY it does. What is the problem? Thor could have caused the static electricity to form lightning, yes. Very good Straggler. Well, im not sure about the gnomes, but God, yes. That's just me tho. You're on the right path.Or is that not what you meant. If so what did you mean?

Yes - That is what I meant.But I am intrigued as to what you think the difference is between invoking flight gnomes as the cause of aerodynamics and Thor as the cause of static electricity that produces storms?What is the difference?As a Christian who (as I understand it) believes that Christ is a supernatural entity and who believes that Christ also physically walked amongst us (and will do so again at some point) - Can you explain why we would not be able to (in principle) scientifically study the supernatural entity that is Christ?

LOL. Ok, so, if I pray for healing for my shoulder and the next day it's healed now what? You give credit to whomever I was praying to? I know what it means. Im simply saying it won't matter now will it? Hmmm. Funny. so you say it's good for evidence then?

Sure prayer could be evidence. But it would have to involve properly studying prayer rather than just relying on people saying that they believe it works.Are you aware of the notion of double blind trials as applied to medical trials?That is the sort of thing that is required. Right?

Dude, stop playing around. Of course I believe it's God. Im happy to say it's God every time believe me. We can study the life of Christ while he was here on earth sure. Right now? You can study christianity sure.Right now, to actually study the SN entity that is Jesus? If I could do that for you I would.Get saved and you can do that yourself. I can't do it for you.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Is God involved in absolutely everything or does anything happen on it's own? I guess that depends whether you believe Christ is amongst us at the moment or not. I am sure some do believe that.......But at what ever point Christ physically walks amongst us there is nothing in principle to stop us scientifically studying this supertrnatural being is there? I would imagine Christ's DNA (considering his parentage) would be rather interesting. For example.

quote:

---

First off, just because YOU say Nuggin has a valid point doesn't mean anything. He took what I said and twisted it around.

---

But he still had a valid point, even with GDR's explanation.

quote:

---

If ever you construct a post that isn't at all condescending flavored with arrogance with a hint of humility it will be a first.

---

Coming from you, that is a bit rich.

quote:

---

As for understanding the posts I make, I perfectly understand what it is I said to Straggler. Thanks kindly tho.

---

Now there's a perfect example. I said that you should make more of an attempt to understand the posts that you are replying to And you reply that you understand the posts that you write. See the problem ?

quote:

---

As for getting my facts straight, OBVIOUSLY I know what abiogenesis is! In fact if you read my post it says "most sciences" aren't interested in origins (I was using the TOE as one example). I thought that would imply abiogenesis was in play as ONE of the sciences that DOES seek answers for our origins.

---

Oh so you weren't being ignorant, just dishonest. Let us remind you of what you said: Now you know that that isn't true. So why did you say it ?

quote:

---

Who even knows what in the frikking world that even means. If you want to come over you can watch me pray anytime. Bring your pen and notepad.

---

I mean that a statistical study should be able to show that prayer is effective. Even if prayer only sometimes works, a positive outcome should happen more frequently than just chance.

quote:

---

I have prayed for certain things that most certainly have been answered. I seriously doubt you would say it was due to prayer as you would call it a coincidence. So save displaying your pious attitude for someone else.

---

But that is exactly why a proper statistical study is needed. If prayer really did work, you wouldn't need to rely on anecdotes that might be coincidences at best. It could be demonstrated. And it hasn't been.Chuck, you've written a few good posts here, and a lot of stinkers. I honestly am trying to give you some good advice here. You could be a lot better than ICANT or Buzsaw, but all too often you aren't.

Hi Chuck,PaulK already explained that I was only talking about phenomena traced to a cause (meaning they were explained) hence of course "there are some things still unexplained." Since each new scientific advance tends to raise more (and more detailed) questions than it answers, the breadth of what we know we haven't yet explained grows each day.The important point is that anything we've explained has had a natural explanation. In the entire history of science, not a single phenomena has ever been found to have a supernatural explanation. As you noted, this is largely due to the nature of science which seeks only natural answers, which raises the question, what would a scientifically supernatural explanation look like. Is "scientifically supernatural" a contradiction in terms?Mod attempts to address this question in the opening post. Your paranoid slip is not only showing, you've pulled up your whole dress when you say Mod was trying to make creationists look stupid. He was trying to resolve the confusion that always develops when discussing the possibility of supernatural explanations. Science not only cares a great deal about origins, it has given origin issues increasing attention over the years. It's inevitable that it would do so, it develops out of the "every answer raises more questions" nature of scientific inquiry. This is true about how we feel on the science side, but our creationist members feel that science should be able to confirm supernatural events. Not only should be able to, but has. How is debate between these two perspectives to be structured? Again, this is what Mod attempts to address in his opening post. But science is not God to me. Most people in science, including myself, are not atheists. Interesting that among the three labels I provided (religious, superstitious and primitive) you chose the last for yourself. The labels refer to people who attribute unseen and unknown and even unknowable causes to phenomena. Isn't that you? (In associating "primitive" with the great apes you exhibited extraordinary effort in finding an insult. I was thinking of remote primitive tribes people.) If the explanation for thunder is Thor, a supernatural being, and if science shows that lightning is actually the product of naturally occurring atmospheric phenomena, then how would you describe what science has accomplished? There are actually some people here who aren't incredibly picky about terminology. It's fine if you don't like the word "refuted" when describing what science has shown about Thor's role in the cause of lightning. What words would you like to use to describe it? Yes, you're correct, that's what I would say, but Mod's opening post describes two different perspectives, and the other one says that, "supernatural events occurred that can be evidenced in a scientific context." For example, a common creationist belief is that the great flood was an actual event for which evidence exists that can scientifically studied. If you think this kind of thinking is wrong then that's what you should be addressing, because it is much more apropos than this conversation where we're just trying to understand each other.It is okay to believe there is more to heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in scientific philosophy, but is there a way to study this other stuff, or is it just something one happens to believe, particularly if one is saved.It's easy to become impassioned in these discussions and begin feeling like people are being arrogant, condescending, insulting, etc. And sometimes they are. Let it all slide off, you'll feel better for it.--Percy

Isn't that part of the oint of this thread? For something to be studied rigorously it needs to have data available to all, not just a subset of the population.What you are saying is that it is only true is you already believe it is true.

From a Christian perspective, God knew that your shoulder hurt, knew that you wanted it to not hurt. Any prayer you make to that end is superfluous. Therefore your shoulder would have been healed regardless of the prayer. And therefore the correlation of prayer and healing is in fact, a coincidence. It might have been healed by God, but the fact that you prayed prior to it does not provide evidence of this fact, since it would have happened anyway.For Biblical references please see Matthew 6.I think we'll need something a little more concrete if we are going to study the supernatural. Are you saying that all supernatural phenomena are necessarily beyond the purview of experiential study? Are you of the position that it is in principle impossible for God to appear in front of multiple observers in a manner that lends for corroboration? That he could not perform miraculous events that alter the normal 'natural' course of events in a way that can be detected above and beyond the personal experiences of individuals?Is the supernatural intrinsically indistinguishable from the delusional? Or is there a little more meat to it than that?

In reading through this I kinda feel that we have varying views on just what we mean by supernatural. Essentially it is what is outside the natural but I think that line can become blurred.The thing is we are wired as particle detectors as sensed through our five senses. How else could the universe be perceived? For example we currently believe that only 4.5% of what there is makes up our perceivable universe. Maybe with different senses we could perceive dark matter. Would that be a supernatural world.In my Nov. 2010 issue of Scientific American the lead article is headed up this way; "Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - An Entire Universe May be Interwoven Silently With Or Own". Would that be a supernatural universe?I think someone suggested if we can discover something scientifically then it is automatically declared natural. I'm not so sure. It seems to me that just possibly science has already discovered the supernatural.