Science

[Brian2]

Natural refers to nature, or the world in which we find ourselves, which we experience through our senses.

What is this supernatural realm we hear about? It is the place where things that are said to exist but are undetectable even in principle are said to reside. Undetectable even in principle means having no impact on nature.

Notice that that is also the definition of the nonexistent - having no impact on reality.

If a deity exists and can affect nature, it is natural as well, and is therefore detectible. Saying that something can impact our reality is to say that it is causally connected to nature. Why give such things a name like supernatural?

Supernatural is a word used to give things indistinguishable from the nonexistent the status of existing without them having the characteristics of physical reality, namely, occupying some time and place in the universe and interacting with other the elements of reality, all of which are causally connected to it, the way all material objects attract and are attracted to all other matter.

So what value is there in the concept "outside nature," or supernatural? What could this word be referring to that would be of interest to us if it refers to that which is not a part of nature? Why call it anything other than natural? Empiricists don't. If it's detectable, it's nature. If it's not, if it is causally disconnected from nature, why think about it at all?

You equate consciousness and what are called OBEs and NDEs with the supernatural. Why? We know about all of these things from experience, which makes them natural. If they were disconnected from nature, we wouldn't know about them and would ignore them perforce. This is the empiricist position. It's the basis for the correspondence theory of truth: "The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world."

I was not the one who names things. "Natural" "supernatural" were both words before I was born. You can the supernatural as natural if you like, that is what science does at times. I go further than what science says because I'm human and go beyond empiricism in my search for the truth. Science I guess cannot do that, it is limited even if some atheists seem to think otherwise.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Dismissing a claim based on a guess is obviously a pretty simple modus operandi, but didn't this discourse open with you decrying the idea that people do that, to unevidenced religious apologetics?

Myself I prefer to keep an open mind, but withhold belief from all claims until sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated for them.

As I recall, it began with me suggesting that not all aspects of the human experience can be quantified, codified, and accounted for by scientific methodology; and that natural sciences cannot provide the answer to every question, nor should we expect them to.

It's good that you keep an open mind, and I do respect your scepticism. We might disagree, however, on what constitutes objective evidence, and on whether such a thing can ever exist - except as a Platonic ideal.

 

[Sheldon]

It is easier to see things as being supernatural than to properly (empirically) evidence those things. But that prize is good rhetoric for atheists.

The Templeton foundation has nothing to do with atheism, your paranoia is simply leaping to false assumptions. Sir John Templeton was a member of the Presbyterian Church, dedicated to his faith, and the John Templeton Foundation was set up to give rewards and grants for the furtherment of his religious beliefs. Your bias is relentlessly made manifest in these atheist conspiracies you keep imagining.

I think I have mentioned OBEs in NDEs and the evidence from them. But you remain dubious.

You did, and I asked you what is supernatural about the process of dying?

It is obviously consciousness outside of a physical body. But you remain dubious. That's OK, you're a skeptic, that is your job.

No it is not remotely "obvious", if it were then those desperate to prove this would be able to demonstrate something beyond mere anecdote, and they have not. The rest of that is a no true Scotsman fallacy if ever there was one.

Who is going to suggest that a scientist showed bias because they did not say that their study could evidence the supernatural?

Any credible scientist submitting anything containing bias would be leaped on by other scientists during the scrutiny of peer review, as I said it would damage their reputation irreparably. Any scientist actually evidencing anything supernatural would be the most lauded and famous scientist ever, why would they not want that? You are simply using biased paranoia about science to rationalise the fact it doesn't evidence your beliefs.

Only religious extremists like me.

Based on what, your innate bias? You're not remotely qualified to peer review the work of scientists, judging from your posts you haven't even the most basic grasp of its methods.

But of course I imagine that using the naturalistic methodology is no more than following the rules.

You need to learn a very little about the methods of science, and stop imaging what they are, based on your prejudice against them not evidencing, or contradicting aspects of, your religious beliefs. As long as you are this biased against science and its methods, then of course you will arrive at these false conclusions.

 

[Heyo]

Consciousness is not measurable with scientific instruments but is defined by science in a materialistic way and studied as a material phenomenon.

Consciousness has a serious problem, I call it "the hard problem of consciousness": it is not or ill defined. Of course a scientist will define consciousness in a materialist way, it is the only aspect of it he can study. And the anti science crowed will loudly not accept that definition.

Science studies the spiritual but defines it as material.

[citation needed]

 

[Heyo]

Not even remotely true, prizes have long been offered to anyone who can properly evidence the supernatural.

That sounds like a self defeating task.
Once you have evidence, a phenomenon ceases to be supernatural.

 

[F1fan]

That is just the presumption, and the fantastic explanation that has resulted from that presumption.

No, we observe consciousness in living brains. We see consciousness cease at death. We don't see any examples of consciousness existing outside of brains. So what is presumed?

Of course these presumptions purport to show that even consciousness is just a by product of the material. But that is no more than circular reasoning,,,,,,,,,,,, which some people believe and others seem more than willing to jump onto as evidence for their disbelief without critical thinking about it.

There is no rational alternative. You religious anti-science folks might as well claim gravity is a supernatural phenomenon since there are questions about how it works.

Who says animals do not have a spirit?

So now you want to deflect to the issue of spirit, which is not defined any better than soul. At best these two words represent a natural essence of living things, but again, nothing suggests a supernatural at work.

We know what the religious are trying to do, and that is to find something about life that a God can be made to fit into. Why? Because the religious have no evidence of their Gods.

Not all of them. You don't want to fall for all the materialistic rhetoric you hear.
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality

You have fallen for religious anti-science rhetoric. The tests in science don't help your cause. they describe and explain these experiences are trauma suffered by brains that are not damaged yet due to oxygen debt. There is clinical death and brain death. Clinical death is defined as a person whose heart and breathing has stopped, but can still be revived. There is about 2 minutes before the brain dies. Once the brain starts to die there is continuing damage, and at some point there is no chance of reviving. The NDE are people whose hearts stopped briefly and were revived. Some report experiences that is similar to dreaming. Do you also consider dreaming to be a supernatural experience? There is no evidence that suggests consciousness exits bodies and is aware of events a person cannot have witnessed. There are claims, but nothing conclusive.

 

[F1fan]

If OBEs are real they show consciousness outside the human body, no physical media for consciousness to be in.

Science does not help you here. You are making a guess that is promoted among poorly informed, religious people. There are claims of consciousness outside of brains, but no evidence, so we throw it out.

To me that certainly goes beyond the boundaries of what science can explain these days. To me also it is evidence for the supernatural,,,,,,,,,,,, spirit.

This is what religious people do who are desperate to justify their religious beliefs due to a lack of evidence. My question is why isn't faith enough for you?

I don't know what experiments could be done to show it shows spirit.

Since spirit isn't known to be real, perhaps that's the problem. Even theists can't describe it definitively.

I would suggest that when the spiritual was not disallowed in science, these OBEs would automatically be seen as showing evidence for the spirit and the supernatural.

So allow a bad assumption so results can be manipulated. That is not part of the strict rules of science. You have religion to make all the assumptions you want. Why are you looking to science to validate your religious beliefs?

This is so odd, you recognize science as a valid and reliable path to truth, but then you don't honor the objectivity that makes it reliable. That illustrates the contempt for science, and the greed rampant in religious belief.

Now the existence of the supernatural and spiritual has to be proven before evidence for the supernatural can be proposed.

Or you are mistaken that they exist as you imagine. That's possible, yes?

Then people say "No evidence for the supernatural so it does not exist".

No, it's theists make a claim a supernatural exists, and then can't explain how they know it. So we throw it out. Theists should admit they only believe a supernatural exists, and they could be mistaken in that belief. Theists don't come to a rational conclusion that a supernatural exists, they adopt a set of religious beliefs from their social/cultural experience.

Most atheists come at it from a different angle and all I'm saying goes over their head of course.

No, we recognize the beliefs that theists have adopted can't demonstrate their beliefs are rational and true, so we reject the claims. That is reasonable for any claim that can't be shown to be true, or even plausible.

If you claimed to eat a ham sandwich for lunch and had no evidence, we can accept that mundane claim. But claiming a supernatural phenomenon exists? That's a fantastic claim that requires a great deal of evidence.

That said, I don't know how science would study spirit. It is undetectable even if it's effects can be seen.

An undetectable belief is synonymous to imagined.

Logically imo it is known to exist from my pov and the inability for science to study it does not mean it is not real but that science oversteps it's boundaries at times by presuming the supernatural is not real, and then defining supernatural things as natural.

In your POV, do you have special sensory powers that enable you to sense supernatural phenomenon? How else could you "know" that something exists that ordinary senses can't detect.

You either have a special power, or you are embellishing, or have convinced yourself that something is true subconsciously and then trying to bluff us. Which is it? Show your evidence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I was speaking of the OBEs in NDEs in the link that I gave.
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality



It's a strange predicament.

The link was about NDEs not OBEs... OBEs have never been verified under scientific conditions.

 

[exchemist]

If OBEs are real they show consciousness outside the human body, no physical media for consciousness to be in. To me that certainly goes beyond the boundaries of what science can explain these days. To me also it is evidence for the supernatural,,,,,,,,,,,, spirit.
I don't know what experiments could be done to show it shows spirit.
I would suggest that when the spiritual was not disallowed in science, these OBEs would automatically be seen as showing evidence for the spirit and the supernatural.
Now the existence of the supernatural and spiritual has to be proven before evidence for the supernatural can be proposed.
Then people say "No evidence for the supernatural so it does not exist".
Most atheists come at it from a different angle and all I'm saying goes over their head of course.
That said, I don't know how science would study spirit. It is undetectable even if it's effects can be seen.
Logically imo it is known to exist from my pov and the inability for science to study it does not mean it is not real but that science oversteps it's boundaries at times by presuming the supernatural is not real, and then defining supernatural things as natural.

When was the supernatural not disallowed in science, though?

My understanding of natural science is that it is the discipline of seeking explanations of nature in nature: it employs what is known as "methodological naturalism". So far as I am aware, science has never invoked supernatural influence as part of its methodology. (Though of course it arose originally from a mish-mash of ideas, some of which may have had supernatural elements to them, later discarded as the discipline took shape and matured.)

 

[Sheldon]

Defining miracles can only go on what science knows.

Science doesn't create dictionaries, they are derived from common usage.

To presume a miracle is not even when there is no scientific explanation is bias imo.

I presumed no such thing, disbelieving a claim is not the same as holding a contrary belief.

As I have said, the presumption is that the brain is the cause of consciousness. It does not have to be supported by objective evidence. The statement is just true. It's the naturalistic methodology again.

It's not presumption, and there absolutely is plenty of objective evidence. I already posted some, and I'm not going to keep retyping it out each time you repeat this falsehood.

Interestingly enough dead matter being conscious is "unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis,,,,,,,,,," but it right there as a presumption of science.

No it isn't? Please do offer a peer reviewed paper claiming dead matter can be conscious? I'll need a credible scientific source, not woo woo.

 

[rational experiences]

A scientist just a human lives on earth with all things created.

Theme science I want to design a machine that earth isn't then react matter as it as earth isn't. By a man's thinking thesis first. All visionary.

No thesis ever existed about when the exact created creation never existed.

Yet it does get stated by humans. Then he does as a man said remove it. By claim when it never existed.

You can't thesis about when it never existed as it does and your thoughts didn't tell it how or why it owned presence.

However you coerced everyone you did.

His status.....By I proved by my destructive machine attack I thought control physically instruct machine to destroy natural presence. My ability to be correct.

Natural history man's taught said you are just an evil liar arrogant ignorant and as egotists. Group human control as humans for humans being human only.

Then as you destroy the human consciousness you abuse us again calling us names that we don't belong to. As we're human only.

Life should not be sacrificed.

Should be perfectly healthy and beautiful.

You removed our form into genesis exodus.

Humans said Jesus saved us to bring to your attention as science scientist men was sacrificing us.

So when humans say to the scientist it's you who named earth God then you abuse us again.

The argument is where did we come from.

Science said Ai.

Natural humans said from the eternal originally then closest proof is an ape.

Then if you study all things you'd realise we are perfectly balanced with animals as we all came from the same place and are self owned bodies first as two parents of anything. The eternal.

We live we die we still own one spirit after we biological die that had always existed not Ai...the eternal.

Science wants Ai to be the eternal. Yet Ai belongs to machines and earths mass that cooled from an evil burning O body past.

Science makes you the destroyer.

Natural health wellbeing human to human was natural advice also isn't science. Science however took over monetary control of everything.

Is about a summary how a scientist says you didn't come from the eternal I claim you came out of burning. And says he's right as he builds AI to get rich.

All human statuses science.

Is who tells us after studying evil spirits in their positions occult sciences secretly that humans didn't come from spirit knowing evil themselves.

That's right occult scientist we didn't come from an evil spirit we came out of the eternal. As you've seen the evil phenomena.

Everyday humans as humans doing science are everyday humans doing science.

The spirit argument is natural human versus occult. Sciences origins by human terms.

Hence if I want to make a claim my parents came out of the eternal body you own no proof they didn't. And we didn't claim it as science. So we are not wrong by descriptive reasoning.

Your claim big bang is not any proof and the sun what you discuss as nuclear does blast.

You say that the ark is a fallacy as you wrote the paper as the scientist knowing the rat in the story mt Ara rat that the mass UFO space star metal burning hit causing melted mass on mountain.

As a spiritual human I was taught the ark was a scientists story not a natural humans story.

Is not any Ark that pre living life boarded. It was why life left. It left as life's biological life support water microbes gardens support and became cloud mass.

Father explained to his best knowledge how why earths atmosphere had pushed onto the eternal body when the sun changed O God earths immaculate gas vibrating Oooooo forcing spirit out. Pre existing spirit. Eternal spirit.

Not out of the immaculate that became burning gases and clouds...burning you notice again.

We had to preach to science that humans life biology was kept safe by clear immaculate gases. So don't thesis remove gods earth mass to that gas status to have it inside a machine reaction.

Otherwise earth proves it gets sin holes by man's cause. Then above us gases burn and fall.

The real history spiritual story was natural human from the eternal versus science of humans causes. Chosen by humans theoried as humans.

 

[ppp]

I was not the one who names things. "Natural" "supernatural" were both words before I was born. You can the supernatural as natural if you like, that is what science does at times. I go further than what science says because I'm human and go beyond empiricism in my search for the truth. Science I guess cannot do that, it is limited even if some atheists seem to think otherwise.

No reason to believe that you can go 'beyond empiricism', either. When you can demonstrate the reliability of your claims, get back to us.

 

[blü 2]

There is a problem of defining things as natural when they are not.
The supernatural would have to interact with the natural world to be detected and when the natural world is seen to have a measurable reaction to something, that reaction can be seen as the cause. An example might be consciousness and neuroscience.

Do I understand you correctly? ─ you're saying that consciousness is supernatural?

If that were so, as we continue our researches into the human brain, we should be encountering processes inexplicable in physical terms, where a physical result can't be attributed to a physical cause, no?

I'm not aware of any evidence of that. Can you refer me to any?

 

[rational experiences]

O life on planet earths history the God types said to human scientists.

The nature's garden existed.

The heavens gases very hot so water not ice existed held in a dense atmosphere that held up huge gigantic cold blooded creatures.

A huge earth space change heavens attacked killed off dinosaurs but the nature garden survived.

Is not any humans theists science thesis.

As it happened. It belonged to the bodies by the bodies that lived died and changed and scientists are just humans only first.

Teaching of science about God. Don't false preach about planet earths owned natural history.

 

[rational experiences]

Do I understand you correctly? ─ you're saying that consciousness is supernatural?

If that were so, as we continue our researches into the human brain, we should be encountering processes inexplicable in physical terms, where a physical result can't be attributed to a physical cause, no?

I'm not aware of any evidence of that. Can you refer me to any?

Any human believer of I want to study the brain consciousness using machines by the way ought to only be allowed to experiment on their own brain by their own organised brothers agreement.

Instead they do it to human victims as they personally as a self belief are so human important.

Machines in out of space.
To machines itself including human choices to point the machine at humans.

Machine by the way began from point position the earth that they claimed was gods body as human scientists.

Hence is suggested they go point their invention at a blank space and see if they holographic cause a human image to emerge as a human creator by sex act only.

Believer of the supernatural...an event by the side para to normal life.

Oh you mean fake maths mother by my side that attacked biologies human?

 

[blü 2]

Any human believer of I want to study the brain consciousness using machines by the way ought to only be allowed to experiment on their own brain by their own organised brothers agreement.

I'm not aware of any subjects in Western medical brain exploration and experiments in at least the last thirty years who were not volunteers.

Please give me a link to any that you know about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does that mean that anything that exists is presumed to be natural and so any explanations are also presumed to be natural?

If it exists in the natural world, acts in the natural world and can be observed using methods reliant on natural laws, it probably is natural.

What is supernatural that can be observed in the natural world so that we can establish a baseline?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is a problem of defining things as natural when they are not.
The supernatural would have to interact with the natural world to be detected and when the natural world is seen to have a measurable reaction to something, that reaction can be seen as the cause. An example might be consciousness and neuroscience.
So in this case science ends up bringing the woowoo into science and defining it as the natural, using fantastic reasoning about how dead matter might be able to be conscious.

I am not sure I am following you. What is it that you are saying here?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the meantime things that are supernatural get analysed as natural and falsely verified as natural.
An example might be our consciousness.
An example of an area where most scientists would not be able or be game enough to claim supernatural, but which is evidence for the supernatural, is OBEs in NDEs. Scientists have the same biases against the supernatural or fear of being seen as heretical by other scientists, as religious leaders had against some scientific discoveries back in the day.
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality

How do you propose that the supernatural be segregated from the natural so that the supernatural is accurately identified? How do you know that consciousness is not based on the natural. Merely proposing it does not make it supernatural.

Since nothing that exists has been shown to be supernatural, what other condition would you expect scientists to apply to observed phenomena?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the meantime things that are supernatural get analysed as natural and falsely verified as natural.
An example might be our consciousness.
An example of an area where most scientists would not be able or be game enough to claim supernatural, but which is evidence for the supernatural, is OBEs in NDEs. Scientists have the same biases against the supernatural or fear of being seen as heretical by other scientists, as religious leaders had against some scientific discoveries back in the day.
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality

Can you demonstrate supernatural phenomena that were incorrectly classified as natural? Not just speculation about consciousness, but something actual.

Some people believe that near death experiences are a supernatural phenomenon or associated with the supernatural. Has this been demonstrated to be supernatural or merely just claimed to be? Many children believe in Santa Clause. Merely believing in Santa does not support or verify the existence of Santa.