The Supernatural - Science?

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't think I am blaming anyone. I'm just trying to get the picture in clear perspective. Hence the questions.

Yet you asserted that scientists were limiting themselves out of convenience. Don't remember? I have the quote here:

So maybe scientists should stop limiting themselves for convenience then.

You even followed it up with a smiley emoji - so cute.

Point being - there's an agenda here. Not simply questions you're trying to get answers to to clear your perspective. Don't kid yourself.

 

[sealchan]

What if there is no detection, should they probe based on a hunch?

Sure, many discoveries that could be later verified have been made that way...so long as the cost of failure is seen as worth the effort.

 

[nPeace]

There is no evidence yet for ETs, so they are imaginative hypotheses. But not supernatural, since if there are any they would be expected to conform to the laws of nature, like anything else.

But what is this about fuel?

Okay, but according to the imaginative hypotheses, some imo seem to cross the line of supernatural.

If an ET is a more advanced life form, what prevents it from being supernatural - able to break all barriers of "natural" laws - (being completely invisible etc.)?

 

[nPeace]

Yet you asserted that scientists were limiting themselves out of convenience. Don't remember? I have the quote here:



You even followed it up with a smiley emoji - so cute.

Point being - there's an agenda here. Not simply questions you're trying to get answers to to clear your perspective. Don't kid yourself.

No. I think you are assuming. I was responding to a post.
You assume based on what you think.

 

[nPeace]

Sure, many discoveries that could be later verified have been made that way...so long as the cost of failure is seen as worth the effort.

That's interesting.
Okay.

 

[exchemist]

Okay, but according to the imaginative hypotheses, some imo seem to cross the line of supernatural.

If an ET is a more advanced life form, what prevents it from being supernatural - able to break all barriers of "natural" laws - (being completely invisible etc.)?

You can make up all sorts of fancies about ETs if you like, but then you are not doing science, but creative fiction.

I was assuming you were referring to scientific hypothesis of extraterrestrial life. These types of hypothesis assume life elsewhere obeys the same physics and chemistry as we know here on Earth.

And what is this about fuel?

 

[QuestioningMind]

How do you determine supernatural?
As said
Where is the line drawn on the supernatural?

By definition the supernatural is: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Science is the study of how the physical universe works based upon the natural laws that we've identified. Thus if something is beyond the laws of nature, it is not a subject that science can investigate. Just like mathematics can't determine the best flavor of ice cream.

I'm not sure why you mention things like lightening and the seasons. These are verified phenomenon that at one time we didn't have a natural explanation for, but due to the wonderful scientific method we now understand precisely how and why they exist. None of your examples actually WERE supernatural... they do NOT exist beyond the laws of nature. Gods, ghosts, and magical fairies are all phenomenon that have NEVER been verified to actually exist, and the reason believers give for WHY science hasn't been able to verify them is because they are SUPERNATURAL and exist OUTSIDE of the laws of nature.

 

[nPeace]

There is no evidence yet for ETs, so they are imaginative hypotheses. But not supernatural, since if there are any they would be expected to conform to the laws of nature, like anything else.

But what is this about fuel?

The video 14:20 - 16:04

 

[sealchan]

That's interesting.
Okay.

It's sort of like the Christopher Columbus effect...go looking for something that you logically deduce should exist (a shipping passage directly from Europe to China) and instead find a whole new land to conquer.

Even when science is wrong, it's good times in the happy effort to correct past assumptions.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No. I think you are assuming. I was responding to a post.
You assume based on what you think.

So, for the record, you don't think that " scientists [are] limiting themselves out of convenience" with respect to spiritual matters?

 

[nPeace]

By definition the supernatural is: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Science is the study of how the physical universe works based upon the natural laws that we've identified. Thus if something is beyond the laws of nature, it is not a subject that science can investigate. Just like mathematics can't determine the best flavor of ice cream.

I'm not sure why you mention things like lightening and the seasons. These are verified phenomenon that at one time we didn't have a natural explanation for, but due to the wonderful scientific method we now understand precisely how and why they exist. None of your examples actually WERE supernatural... they do NOT exist beyond the laws of nature. Gods, ghosts, and magical fairies are all phenomenon that have NEVER been verified to actually exist, and the reason believers give for WHY science hasn't been able to verify them is because they are SUPERNATURAL and exist OUTSIDE of the laws of nature.

They were once considered supernatural.
This is from Wikipedia, I didn't make it up.
things once thought to be supernatural such as lightning, seasons, and human senses

 

[QuestioningMind]

So would you say then, that ETs, and multiverses, and the fuel said to give birth to these, would fall into the category of supernatural?

No, because the hypothesis about ETs, a multiverse, and the 'fuel that gave birth to these' are all based on natural laws. Supernatural is by definition something that exists BEYOND natural laws.

 

[nPeace]

So, for the record, you don't think that " scientists [are] limiting themselves out of convenience" with respect to spiritual matters?

I understand that the scientific method is very useful to science. That all I will say on that. There is a lot we can learn outside of science, imo.
That's all.

 

[exchemist]

The video 14:20 - 16:04

Ah I see. These seem to be more speculative hypotheses, backed by no evidence as yet. But again, not supernatural, as they call on existing field theory, i.e. behave according to existing principles of nature as we understand them.

 

[nPeace]

No, because the hypothesis about ETs, a multiverse, and the 'fuel that gave birth to these' are all based on natural laws. Supernatural is by definition something that exists BEYOND natural laws.

Okay, now I am really confused. Don't worry about it.
Now I get what you are trying to say - natural laws as they understand them. Understood.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I understand that the scientific method is very useful to science. That all I will say on that. There is a lot we can learn outside of science, imo.
That's all.

But wait... that's not "all" you said earlier. But I can see you are uncomfortable admitting things surrounding this topic, so I'll stop asking.

 

[exchemist]

Okay, now I am really confused. Don't worry about it.

An example of the supernatural would be a miracle, i.e. some event in which the laws of nature were suspended or broken by intervention from God, say.

 

[QuestioningMind]

They were once considered supernatural.
This is from Wikipedia, I didn't make it up.
things once thought to be supernatural such as lightning, seasons, and human senses

Yes, these are all things that people THOUGHT were supernatural. But in reality NONE of them actually ARE supernatural. Furthermore, they are ALL phenomenon that everyone agreed DID exist. No one argued that there was no evidence that lightening even existed... the question was always, what caused it? Was it a natural occurrence that followed natural laws or was it a SUPERNATURAL occurrence that was BEYOND natural laws?

Thus far we've never encountered ANY phenomenon that we've confirmed actually exists and have ALSO confirmed that it exists beyond the laws of nature.

 

[Nakosis]

What do you think about ETs, or alien life forms, and intelligence? Do you think they should be included, since in theory they could fall into the category of supernatural, imo - based on certain proposed ideas?

There's a possibility of them being proven, right? If an alien shows up or we get proof, it becomes scientific.

Supernatural really needs to work contradictory to the known laws of nature. Like non-material existence. Matter as far as we know can be observed and tested objectively.

It's a good but difficult question. What is supernatural maybe more a matter of opinion than precise definition. Like God may end up having a material existence which could be tested and observed. Some folks believe in a "natural" version of God.

I suppose we use the term supernatural for things that we assume can't ever be tested or verified.

 

[nPeace]

Ah I see. These seem to be more speculative hypotheses, backed by no evidence as yet. But again, not supernatural, as they call on existing field theory, i.e. behave according to existing principles of nature as we understand them.

Okay. Got it.