Can the supernatural be detected by science?

[4gold]

Let's say you had me in a controlled laboratory environment, and every single blind person that I touched could instantly see, or that every amputee I touched would instantly grow limbs, or that every time I stepped on water I did not sink...what scientific evidence would suggest that the supernatural exists?

My argument is that science is only useful to disprove a philosophical claim, not to prove one. I have about a dozen arguments that I prefer for the existence of God, but none are scientific. All involve reason and philosophy, instead.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

That God is outside the reach of science is not widely accepted - at least not by critical thinkers, there is no reason to.

It is the same argument that said God was on Mt Sinai, then discovering God wasn't there, saying he was in the clouds, discovering God isn't there, looking in space... and discovering he wasn't there...

Now you make the claim that God might exist because science can't detect him...

If God isn't between here and the Andromeda Galaxy, it is widely agreed that he ain't anywhere.

Unfounded! Mere claim! Because it's claimed that God is spirit and for now, spirit is outside of science (unless the human spirit/mind that's inside the body)!

It should be pointed out that something which has no physical form, and which can only be imagined and declared to be true is an unfounded mere claim.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 51 by Tired of the Nonsense]

"It should be pointed out that something which has no physical form, and which can only be imagined and declared to be true is an unfounded mere claim."

Really? Think again.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 51 by Tired of the Nonsense]

"It should be pointed out that something which has no physical form, and which can only be imagined and declared to be true is an unfounded mere claim."

Really? Think again.

Perhaps part of your post got left out? The part where you explain this 'think again'.
I say this because I find it hard to believe that you would think that, 'think again' is a form of debate.

You seem to disagree with his assertion. Will you explain why?

[otseng]

Really? Think again.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid posting one-liner comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 51 by Tired of the Nonsense]

"It should be pointed out that something which has no physical form, and which can only be imagined and declared to be true is an unfounded mere claim."

Really? Think again.

Perhaps part of your post got left out? The part where you explain this 'think again'.
I say this because I find it hard to believe that you would think that, 'think again' is a form of debate.

You seem to disagree with his assertion. Will you explain why?

I was surprised by the answer.
There are many things we accept as a fact of life which have no physical form.
We don't have to imagine them yet they are real in our lives.
Perhaps I am wrong but do not see love, compassion, wisdom, longing, joy.. having physical form yet very real. Therefore my - think again.

[Clownboat]

I was surprised by the answer.
There are many things we accept as a fact of life which have no physical form.
We don't have to imagine them yet they are real in our lives.
Perhaps I am wrong but do not see love, compassion, wisdom, longing, joy.. having physical form yet very real. Therefore my - think again.

You should not be surprised.
The physical form of love:

"Falling in love causes our body to release a flood of feel-good chemicals that trigger specific physical reactions," said Pat Mumby, PhD, co-director of the Loyola Sexual Wellness Clinic and professor, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Neurosciences, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine (SSOM). "This internal elixir of love is responsible for making our cheeks flush, our palms sweat and our hearts race."

Levels of these substances, which include dopamine, adrenaline and norepinephrine, increase when two people fall in love. Dopamine creates feelings of euphoria while adrenaline and norepinephrine are responsible for the pitter-patter of the heart, restlessness and overall preoccupation that go along with experiencing love.

MRI scans indicate that love lights up the pleasure center of the brain. When we fall in love, blood flow increases in this area, which is the same part of the brain implicated in obsessive-compulsive behaviors.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 155244.htm

Therefore, this claim of his still seems to be true:
"It should be pointed out that something which has no physical form, and which can only be imagined and declared to be true is an unfounded mere claim."

Love can be detected. The gods, not at all as of yet.

[Bust Nak]

This puzzles me:

We rule out many things via the Scientific Method.
Corpuscular theory of light, flat Earth, round tip lightning rods.

You merely set up your criteria and test them.

Right, because those things are falsifiable. The same does not apply to God.

An all powerful god is trivial to dismiss as fancy...Thus if God is capable of affecting the Earth, we should be able to find him via mass.
One God ruled out.

Good luck getting theists to agree to your version of God with that specific testable feature.

That's not true! Science as activity isn't bounded by anything, but the (limits of) Scientific Method (e.g. Hypothetical-Deductive Method) itself.

What do you think the Scientific Method / hypothetical-Deductive Method is, if not another name for "methodological naturalism?"

[ThePainefulTruth]

Let's say you had me in a controlled laboratory environment, and every single blind person that I touched could instantly see, or that every amputee I touched would instantly grow limbs, or that every time I stepped on water I did not sink...what scientific evidence would suggest that the supernatural exists?

My argument is that science is only useful to disprove a philosophical claim, not to prove one. I have about a dozen arguments that I prefer for the existence of God, but none are scientific. All involve reason and philosophy, instead.

If none of your arguments are scientific, then they do not involve reason.

And reason would dictate that God has designed the universe so that It (God) would be undetectable, so as not to influence the free will we have to make our moral choices. God's supernatural existence would then require that we'd be unable to detect or experience the supernatural as well.

[Bust Nak]

And reason would dictate that God has designed the universe so that It (God) would be undetectable, so as not to influence the free will we have to make our moral choices...

And yet, according to Christianity, God still influence the free will we have to make our moral choices via Jesus's teaching, the Bible and his prophets. How do you reconcile your thesis that God has deliberately hidden himself from science to not influence our freewill and yet at the same time, influencing our freewill?

In other words, who do you think is going to be acting more freely, more in accordance to his true desires, someone who does not believe in God, or someone who believe God is watching all the time and might punish him for his transgressions?

[ThePainefulTruth]

And reason would dictate that God has designed the universe so that It (God) would be undetectable, so as not to influence the free will we have to make our moral choices...

And yet, according to Christianity, God still influence the free will we have to make our moral choices via Jesus's teaching, the Bible and his prophets. How do you reconcile your thesis that God has deliberately hidden himself from science to not influence our freewill and yet at the same time, influencing our freewill?

There's no reconciliation necessary. Christianity does not allow for free will (God supposedly knows the future, only those who are written in the Book of Life are saved), therefore Christianity is bogus. This is supported by the fact that, while there is wisdom and history in the Bible, there are no supernatural events/revelations that don't rely completely on hearsay.

In other words, who do you think is going to be acting more freely, more in accordance to his true desires, someone who does not believe in God, or someone who believe God is watching all the time and might punish him for his transgressions?

Both choices are based on blind-faith based belief, that is, belief in the complete absence of reasoned evidence/facts supporting those beliefs. And since both beliefs are baseless, moral choices are still made under free will, though blind-faith beliefs are forms of self-deception--which isn't immoral, but it isn't virtuous either.

Does it make any sense that the Israelites who had just seen God deliver them from Egypt, with that God in the pillar of cloud/fire parting the Red Sea and leading them in the desert, to, with that pillar still at hand, worship a golden calf?