I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

I'm not "scientifically explaining the supernatural". I'm telling you how a supernatural hypotheses could be objectively evidenced. Do you understand the difference between "explanation" and "evidence"?Really CS - For thread after thread, year after year you tell me that "subjective evidence" - Voices inside people's heads and suchlike - Cannot be ignored and that it is suggestive of supernatural beings actually existing. You have debated every single regular atheist participant here at EvC on the basis that these subjective experiences are genuinely indicative of the supernatural actually existing.But I give you an example of how a supernatural hypothesis could be objectively evidenced by prediction and verification and you tell me that you would never accept that evidence!!!Do you think voices inside people's heads are a better form of evidence than verified predictions of the sort I have described?WTF

I have described how I would use prediction to verify a supernatural hypothesis.See my post to CS.What exactly is your problem with that use of prediction?

This is:As a result of prayer it has been revealed that those closest to GOD will be imbued with incredible healing powers.The hypothesis is that those who are more devout will receive healing powers from GOD.The prediction is that those who devote themselves to GOD will exhibit these healing powers.Lo and behold priests all around the world are suddenly and verifiably able to heal cancer, cause the re-growth of missing limbs and so on and so forth. The Pope is verifiably able to resurrect the dead.But - unconvinced - we do some further testing of this hypothesis:
We get a group of those who are about to set out dedicating their life to prayer, biblical study and generally praising GOD.We get another group who think it's all a load of bunk and who refuse to have anything to do with GOD whatever these mysterious healing powers may suggest.We get a control group who have no idea what they are being tested for.
Over time the first group are objectively verified as exhibiting incredible healing powers whilst the other two groups show no such signs.The above would be objective empirical evidence in favour of the supernatural claim in question obtained by the application of the hypothetico-deductive method.

I don't see where there was any test of the supernatural there.Your basic premise is flawed when you say "The hypothesis is that those who are more devout will receive healing powers from GOD. The prediction is that those who devote themselves to GOD will exhibit these healing powers."That is not a test of the supernatural. At best your results, if the did happen show that a group of people have healing powers. It says a little about that group but nothing about the supernatural.Again, I would not see any support for the supernatural there.

There was a test of the hypothesis in question.Do you see how verifying the predictions of gravity as space-time curvature verifies the hypothesis that gravitational effects are caused by spacetime geometry?Can you explain why tests by prediction don't apply to supernatural hypotheses?

I have never seen a predictive test of the supernatural proposed.As I said, I don't see anything in your example related to the supernatural.

Are you even reading my posts?

quote:

---

In principle, the supernatural could be witnessed by a scientific approach, but scientific explanations are supposed to be natural.

---

quote:

---

Science can investigate anything that can be investigated, be it natural or not.

​

It limits itself to explanations that are natural, but that doesn't dictate what you can look at.

---

Yeah, apparently you're not. That doesn't resemble my beliefs at all.Subjective evidence can certainly be ignored, isn't really all that genuine, and doesn't give us a good indication of much of anything. Quote me saying that.

Do you agree that the hypothesis in question has been evidenced by verified prediction in the scenario as described?

I see the hypothesis as flawed from the beginning. I see no test of the supernatural in your example.

Right - I've described, through example, how a supernatural hypothesis could conceivably be objectively evidenced using the hypothetico-deductive method.You don't seem to disagree with that in principle so I'm baffled as to what we are arguing about....?I certainly haven't said "science has explained the supernatural". Not in the healing scenario. Not anywhere. So I really don't know where you plucked that accusation from.

Tell me how it is flawed.

Sorry but I get tired of repeating the obvious. Go read what I write.

What's the difference between not needing to make any more adjustments and not being able to make any more adjustments? You're over-generalizing. Some religious minds refuse to adjust some faulty premises. "The" religious mind just doesn't stop when it runs out of verifiable premises.

I dunno. I made a general reply that science can witness anything, but its explanations are limited to natural ones.And then you started getting into how science could witness the supernatural.

Presumably you mean your standard response - "How do you know it is GOD" in response to the hypothesis in question.But this is like asking Einstein "How do you know it is spacetime curvature" when he hypothesised that spacetime curvature was the cause of gravitational effects.The answer - Obviously - Is that you can only claim to know your hypothesis is correct when it has been tested.I have described to you how a supernatural hypothesis can be tested using the hypothetico-deductive method. I have described how a suprentural hypothesis couls conceivably be evidenced by virtue of verified predictions.