Can a supernatural explanation be scientific?

[Sjoerd]

From another thread:

A naturalistic world view is one of the foundations of science.

Only recently has it been a "foundation" in science.

Everything that happens must be governed by *some* law and have *some* kind of observable cause.

Yes. However, in a naturalistic worldview, it automatically rejects any type of supernatural cause, even if there is empirical evidence for it.

However, I strongly object against presenting as science something that isn't. If it isn't compatible with the naturalistic worldview, it isn't science.

I would disagree. But, this is not really a part of this topic.

Question for debate:

Can a supernatural explanation be scientific? Is there any scenario where, following the scientific method, a supernatural explanation could be accepted as a scientific theory, even if it is true ?

To stay on topic, please accept the following assumptions during debate (even though both of them are far-fetched):
- The supernatural phenomena are factual truth
- Scientists are not biased by existing theories or by their own opinions, but only by biases inherent to the scientific method

[Grumpy]

Sjoerd

Hold on...are you saying that an event such as Jesus walking on water would not have been supernatural if there had been scientific instruments present?

I, myself, have walked on water many times(once in the middle of an angry ocean), completely supported by nothing but water(though, these days I roll on water). There is a perfectly good scientific explanation for this.

If Jesus(or anyone else) walked on water in the real world, there would also be a perfectly good scientific explanation, miracles need not apply.

Grumpy

[Scotracer]

Maybe Jesus was walking on custard - anyone can walk on the top of a non-Newtonian fluid.