Studying the supernatural

So as far as you are concerned God is directly manipulating the world to cause storms and allow aeroplanes and birds to fly? The naturalistic explanations for these things in no way negates any direct role for God in these, or any other, phenomena? God is playing the role assigned to Thor and the flight gnomes mentioned above? Well the last time you (very belligerently) claimed to know something you had to back down and admit that you didn't really know it at all.In this case can you explain how your "know" is anything more than an expression of deep conviction? It is nonsensical for you to fanatically cheer the notion that the supernatural is something inherently and innately unable to be studied whilst simultaneously believing in a supernatural being that walked amongst us in a physical form.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The Templeton Foundation (a pro-theistic organisation) did a blue ribbon standard, peer reviewed study into the efficacy of prayer after a number of previous studies in the field were accused of methodological weaknesses. The results of this study were negative. Templeton Foundation Post Research Press Release and Associated Links

Alas not everyone is as enlightened or reasonable as you and I GDR. Then how can it's conception be sourced from anywhere other than the internal workings of creative minds? I think this is the article you are talking about. LinkI don't see anything in here that would qualify as supernatural. Indeed there seems to be a case being made that we can and are scientifically investigating these areas. If anyone thinks "supernatural" is simply that which is a generation or two of particle accelerators away from being scientifically understood then I would probably qualify as a raging supernaturalist.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well we have had physicists offering to eat their pants on live TV if the 'faster than light' travel thing is confirmed.Christ alone knows what some of us will do if CERN actually discovers heaven!!!!!!Play ping pong with my own eyeballs?

I think it means we can conclude that when studied scientifically prayer doesn't appear to work.No doubt believers will claim that the very act of studying it in this way negates the effects or somesuch. Anecdotal "evidence" will continue to be rife. But the best scientific study done to date doesn't corrobrate those subjective claims. I think the quality of most of them, rather than the quantity, is the main problem. They need to be conducted just like the best medical trials.

Actually our model of cosmology works very well indeed. It just isn't entirely compatible with our other equally successful models (i.e. quantum theory). So we know something somewhere has to be a bit wrong in our scientific understanding of reality as a whole. Well this is probably more likely than discovering heaven.

If you assume that the supernatural exists and then view scientific evidence as evidence of supernatural activity you will inevitably conclude that the supernatural exists. It's just quite obviously circular.Surely science has to start by assuming nothing and following wherever it is the evidence leads? Surely science takes the following sort of approach: Well with direct reference to the topic here - What things currently being studied at CERN, with telescopes etc. would constitute scientific evidence of the supernatural if found?What do you think evidence of the supernatural would look like?
And if we don't find it is that indicative of the absence of supernatural involvement at all in your view?

If (for example) Harold Camping had got it right that would constitute pretty conclusive evidence of the supernatural wouldn't it?Due to the nature of the predicted event it would be shortlived (or arguably eternal I guess) evidence. But it would be evidence wouldn't it?

I don't "know".But more to the point- If there were evidence that Harold Camping (or some other such equivalent) was correct (either in this universe or any other that we can gain evidence of) would that constitute evidence of the supernatural?

Imagine we are in the Matrix. Now I know this isn't quite what you meant but it could just as easily fit your description/criteria regarding us being in a sub reality of an undetectable greater reality.Would the greater reality in which the matrix exists (the one where our brains are in pods or whatever) qualify as "supernatural".I don't think it would.So I don't think simply being a "greater reality" as you have suggested necessarily makes anything supernatural at all.

So the supernatural 'greater reality' you are talking about is one that "wouldn’t be subject to natural laws" - Is that correct?If so I don't think the sort of extra dimensional conjectures that theoretical physicists are proposing (the sort of thing mentioned in previous links re CERN etc.) really qualify do they?If they weren't subject to natural laws I don't see how we could discern their presence by extrapolating mathematical models which are based on the natural laws we do know about in this universe.

How would "different laws of physics" in this different universe qualify as "supernatural".....? Theoretical physicists have long been proposing the possibility of universes with different natural laws to the ones we know.But that is hardly the same as finding heaven.

This is what Camping predicted: If this had happened, indeed we would be in in the middle of the fire and brimstone part of it now, I don't really see how anyone could meaningfully deny that this would constitute positive evidence of Christian supernatural claims.Call me a pseudskeptic if you will - But I doubt his revised claim will amount to much either.

I recommend to you a book called Parallel Worlds; A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos by Michio Kaku.In it he speculates about the possibility of intelligent life leaving this universe and going to another (particularly in the context of our own universe reaching a heat death state) - He talks about the physics of that possibility. It's interesting and entertaining.But I am still doubtful that any of this relates to anything that can meaningfully be called "supernatural". So I'll leave it there.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think it is right at the end where he talks about how intelligent beings in a dying universe might be able to "wormhole" their way (or at least some form of data from which they could be reconstructed in some sense) into a parallel universe.It sort of echoes Taq's analogy of other universes being a bit like other continents to our long long dead ancestors. That it is difficult to get to doesn't make it "supetrnatural" or even part of a greater reality rather than just an expansion of what we understand as reality. The role of the consciousness in QM is a subject of much misconception. Here is a recent article on that specifically LinkAnd you mentioned Wheeler in particular:

quote:

---

Caution: "Consciousness" has nothing whatsover to do with the quantum process. We are dealing with an event that makes itself known by an irreversible act of amplification, by an indelible record, an act of registration. Does that record subsequently enter into the "consciousness" of some person, some animal or some computer? Is that the first step into translating the measurement into "meaning" meaning regarded as "the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who communicate." Then that is a separate part of the story, important but not to be confused with "quantum phenomena." (Wheeler, 1983).

---

I remain unconvinced that there is anything "supernatural" about this "greater reality". It seems more just a case of being difficult to investigate. And that is very probably a technological problem more than anything more mysterious.