The Supernatural - Science?

[nPeace]

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.

Right. I clearly didn't understand - Of course they could see lighting. Okay.

 

[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

When did I claim that people didn't at one time consider lightening to be a supernatural phenomenon?

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

Did you think I meant natural laws as they DON'T understand them?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why are we here?
We are here because of fuel
Um... Guys what are you laughing at? Do you find that fun...

I listened to the entire talk. Interesting.

Why is our universe fine-tuned for life? | Brian Greene
If you like, you can listen to the entire talk - The excitement starts imo, at 11:12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not the highlight of this thread. Just thought I'd share.
Question:
Does science consider what's supernatural?

Your thoughts. Appreciate it if you say why, you answer as you do.

Hypothetical
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

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

...is that which exists (or is claimed to exist), yet cannot be explained by laws of nature. Examples often include characteristics of or relating to ghosts, angels, gods, souls and spirits, non-material beings, or anything else considered beyond nature like magic, miracles, etc.

Over time, things once thought to be supernatural such as lightning, seasons, and human senses have been shown to have entirely naturalistic explanations and origins. Some believe that which is considered supernatural will someday be discovered to be completely physical and natural. Those who believe only the physical world exists are called naturalists. Those who believe similarly often maintain skeptical attitudes and beliefs concerning supernatural concepts.

Multiverse
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, "A Brief History of the Multiverse", the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific:
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.
— Paul Davies, The New York Times, "A Brief History of the Multiverse"

George Ellis, writing in August 2011, provided a criticism of the multiverse, and pointed out that it is not a traditional scientific theory. He accepts that the multiverse is thought to exist far beyond the cosmological horizon. He emphasized that it is theorized to be so far away that it's unlikely any evidence will ever be found. Ellis also explained that some theorists do not believe the lack of empirical testability falsifiability is a major concern, but he is opposed to that line of thinking:
Many physicists who talk about the multiverse, especially advocates of the string landscape, do not care much about parallel universes per se. For them, objections to the multiverse as a concept are unimportant. Their theories live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing.
Ellis says that scientists have proposed the idea of the multiverse as a way of explaining the nature of existence. He points out that it ultimately leaves those questions unresolved because it is a metaphysical issue that cannot be resolved by empirical science. He argues that observational testing is at the core of science and should not be abandoned:
As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here.... In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is.
— George Ellis, Scientific American, "Does the Multiverse Really Exist?"

Extraterrestrial life (ETs)
Extraterrestrial life, also called alien life (or, if it is a sentient or relatively complex individual, an "extraterrestrial" or "alien"), is [*life that occurs outside of Earth and that probably did not originate from Earth. These hypothetical life forms may range from simple prokaryotes to beings with civilizations far more advanced than humanity.*] The Drake equation speculates about the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. The science of extraterrestrial life in all its forms is known as exobiology.

The concept of extraterrestrial life, and [*particularly extraterrestrial intelligence*], has had a major cultural impact, chiefly in works of science fiction. Over the years, [*science fiction communicated scientific ideas, imagined a wide range of possibilities, and influenced public interest in and perspectives of extraterrestrial life.*] One shared space is the debate over the wisdom of attempting communication with extraterrestrial intelligence. Some encourage aggressive methods to try for contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life. Others—citing the tendency of technologically advanced human societies to enslave or wipe out less advanced societies—argue that it may be dangerous to actively call attention to Earth.


transcendent
adjective
beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.
surpassing the ordinary; exceptional.

transcendent (comparative more transcendent, superlative most transcendent)
1. surpassing usual limits
2. beyond the range of usual perception
3. free from constraints of the material world

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.)?

Astrobiology
Astrobiology is a branch of biology concerned with the origins, early evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe. Astrobiology considers the question of whether extraterrestrial life exists, and how humans can detect it if it does. The term exobiology is similar.

Astrobiology makes use of molecular biology, biophysics, biochemistry, chemistry, astronomy, exoplanetology and geology to investigate the possibility of life on other worlds and help recognize biospheres that might be different from that on Earth. The origin and early evolution of life is an inseparable part of the discipline of astrobiology. Astrobiology concerns itself with interpretation of existing scientific data, and although speculation is entertained to give context, astrobiology concerns itself primarily with hypotheses that fit firmly into existing scientific theories.

Astronomy
[*Astronomy is a natural science that studies celestial objects and phenomena.*] It applies mathematics, physics, and chemistry, in an effort to explain the origin of those objects and phenomena and their evolution. Objects of interest include planets, moons, stars, galaxies, and comets; the phenomena include supernova explosions, gamma ray bursts, and cosmic microwave background radiation. [*More generally, all phenomena that originate outside Earth's atmosphere are within the purview of astronomy. A related but distinct subject, physical cosmology, is concerned with the study of the Universe as a whole.*]

Phenomenon
A phenomenon is any thing which manifests itself. Phenomena are often, but not always, understood as "things that appear" or "experiences" for a sentient being, or in principle may be so.
The term came into its modern philosophical usage through Immanuel Kant, who contrasted it with the noumenon. In contrast to a phenomenon, a noumenon cannot be directly observed. Kant was heavily influenced by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in this part of his philosophy, in which phenomenon and noumenon serve as interrelated technical terms. Far predating this, the ancient Greek Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus also used phenomenon and noumenon as interrelated technical terms.

Scientific
[*In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however common it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe, record, or compile data concerning it. For example, in physics, a phenomenon may be described by a system of information related to matter, energy, or spacetime, such as Isaac Newton's observations of the moon's orbit and of gravity, or Galileo Galilei's observations of the motion of a pendulum.

Another example of scientific phenomena can be found in the experience of phantom limb sensations. This occurrence, the sensation of feeling in amputated limbs, is reported by over 70% of amputees. Although the limb is no longer present, they report still experiencing sensations. This is an extraordinary event that defies typical logic and has been a source of much curiosity within the medical and physiological fields.*]

Dark matter is so named because it neither absorbs nor emits light and thereforecannot be directly observed. But astronomers know dark matter exists because it interacts gravitationally with the "normal" matter we can see and touch.

Sorry about the length. I just wanted to simplify it.

What is the 'supernatural' phenomenon that you want to investigate using the scientific method? First you need to propose a hypothesis... such as ghosts exist... or magical fairies exist... or a creator god exists.... THEN you need to devise a means of testing your hypothesis. IF it is not possible to test your hypothesis, then there's nothing more that the scientific method can do for you. Until or unless you can find a means of testing your hypothesis, it will forever remain an untested hypothesis. It's the same way for those who propose a multi-verse hypothesis. Until or unless they can find a way to test their hypothesis, it will forever remain an untested hypothesis and will never become an established scientific theory.

 

[Mox]

For creationists, since God created the universe, religious experiences etc arent supernatural, they are natural to the paradigm of the religious belief.
So, religious things are simply occurences that may not be common, yet are considered normal, for the paradigm.

You don't have to be a science denying creationist who misunderstands the meaning of supernatural to believe a God created the universe.

A creationist is a biblical literalist, who irrationally claims the book of genesis is a complete description for the origin of the universe and life on earth.

This is not the same thing as someone who for example believes the universe was caused and it's initial physical parameters set, by God but allowed to evolve from it's simpler early state to it's current complex one, with the laws of physics mediating all interactions between spacetime the forces the fields matter and energy.

 

[siti]

All three are the most um.. est.
The universe is obviously more than a few thousand years old, although created by God, imho.
Volcanoes - more specifically, the magma - could not exist if they were not created, imho.
Bacteria could not exist if they were not created. There is a balance of things for a purpose, and there is a purpose for an off balance, imho.

In the above video, I would think it very um... est, if someone were to tell me that the organ with all it's working parts, including the function of the cerumen was a product of evolution rather than purposeful design.
In fact, I would be more than eager to hear them explain it.
Do you feel obliged?

Not obliged at all - but I'll tell you what - I'll meet you half way - I'll give you some pointers and leave the detailed research for you do yourself - if you feel so inclined.

First of all - can we agree that when we observe the facial features of a child and declare we can see the child's parent's or grandparent's features reflected we are making a statement about about biological heredity - yes/no?

Does the child resemble the parents because she was specifically created to do so? Or is just the natural process by which biological traits are passed on from generation to generation? Would you expect a child's biologically inherited features bear a more striking resemblance to a randomly selected unrelated human than to a sibling or a parent? Yes/no?

OK - with that in mind, what do you think explains the similarity of the ears of humans and other primates and the strikingly different appearance of the ears of other animals - say a cat or an elephant?

Now lets go a bot deeper and consider the bones that make the internal parts of the ear - the three tiny ones that form the middle ear of mammals are referred to as the auditory ossicles (you can look this up if you want to learn more about mammalian hearing ability and how it came about). The arrangement of these bones is essentially the same for all mammals - though the specific morphology varies considerably between species - to the extent that it is, in fact, a defining feature that distinguishes mammals from other amniotes (birds and reptiles). What do you suppose explains this "family trait"? Were mammal ears specifically created to resemble each other in each case, or were they inherited biologically from direct biological descendants - like blue eyes or brown hair or long noses in human family lineages?

Going deeper still - it turns out that the same set of bones are in fact present in less closely related amniotes such as birds and reptiles - including ancient fossilized ones - but they are not part of the ear - they are part of the jaw. Reptile and bird ears work with just one bone rather than three in the middle ear. Is that because they were each created specifically to resemble each other or is it because birds and reptiles inherited the biology of their hearing organs from their parents and resemble the hearing organs of other birds and reptiles more closely than they do mammals by the perfectly natural process of biological heredity?

I'll leave you to work exactly how "um..." you think this is - it seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nobody is objecting... I hope.

The Discovery Institute believes there is scientific evidence for believing in 'Intelligent Design' and 'Fine Tuning.'

 

[nPeace]

The Discovery Institute believes there is scientific evidence for believing in 'Intelligent Design' and 'Fine Tuning.'

Oh, apparently I misunderstood you.You are saying there is no evidence it is fine-tuned.
It does seem that way. Why do you think not?

 

[nPeace]

Not obliged at all - but I'll tell you what - I'll meet you half way - I'll give you some pointers and leave the detailed research for you do yourself - if you feel so inclined.

First of all - can we agree that when we observe the facial features of a child and declare we can see the child's parent's or grandparent's features reflected we are making a statement about about biological heredity - yes/no?

Does the child resemble the parents because she was specifically created to do so? Or is just the natural process by which biological traits are passed on from generation to generation? Would you expect a child's biologically inherited features bear a more striking resemblance to a randomly selected unrelated human than to a sibling or a parent? Yes/no?

OK - with that in mind, what do you think explains the similarity of the ears of humans and other primates and the strikingly different appearance of the ears of other animals - say a cat or an elephant?

Now lets go a bot deeper and consider the bones that make the internal parts of the ear - the three tiny ones that form the middle ear of mammals are referred to as the auditory ossicles (you can look this up if you want to learn more about mammalian hearing ability and how it came about). The arrangement of these bones is essentially the same for all mammals - though the specific morphology varies considerably between species - to the extent that it is, in fact, a defining feature that distinguishes mammals from other amniotes (birds and reptiles). What do you suppose explains this "family trait"? Were mammal ears specifically created to resemble each other in each case, or were they inherited biologically from direct biological descendants - like blue eyes or brown hair or long noses in human family lineages?

Going deeper still - it turns out that the same set of bones are in fact present in less closely related amniotes such as birds and reptiles - including ancient fossilized ones - but they are not part of the ear - they are part of the jaw. Reptile and bird ears work with just one bone rather than three in the middle ear. Is that because they were each created specifically to resemble each other or is it because birds and reptiles inherited the biology of their hearing organs from their parents and resemble the hearing organs of other birds and reptiles more closely than they do mammals by the perfectly natural process of biological heredity?

I'll leave you to work exactly how "um..." you think this is - it seems pretty obvious to me.

[GALLERY=media, 8575]Art-701749_1920 by nPeace posted Jul 9, 2018 at 8:42 PM[/GALLERY]
Are all of the above the same? Do they all have the same function? Yet they have one thing in common. They were all made with the same process, and from the same material?
Did I answer your questions?

 

[siti]

Are all of the above the same? Do they all have the same function? Yet they have one thing in common. They were all made with the same process, and from the same material?
Did I answer your questions?

You didn't answer any question as far as I can tell - you simply posed some more questions which I don't understand at all.

 

[oldbadger]

Question:
Does science consider what's supernatural?

You write about Science as if it's a Theistic Deity.
Anyway I prefer the word Nature which could include everything both Natural and SuperNatural.

Your thoughts.

Our Universe is composed of a very small % of matter.
It has a much larger % of Dark Matter.
It has a HUGE % of Dark Energy.

Strangely, SuperNaturally, as our Universe expands the intensity of Dark Energy and Dark Matter does not DILUTE.... or REDUCE...... it remains CONSTANT.
That's a bit like Creatiion of something from nothing. It's kind of ...... SuperNatural.

Appreciate it if you say why, you answer as you do.

Seen it on telly, mate.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh, apparently I misunderstood you.You are saying there is no evidence it is fine-tuned.
It does seem that way. Why do you think not?

Fine tuning and Intelligent Design require assumptions that are not supported by objective verifiable evidence. They require 'arguing from ignorance' and assumptions of what is unknown.

Some proposed that fine tuning answered the questions concerning the possibility that our universe could have formed with a wide range of values for the constant and laws of our universe, and that our constants and laws are the only way life could form, and all this is unknown,

From: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/#CondRealFineTuneForLife

1.2 Are Conditions Really Fine-Tuned for Life?
Considerations according to which the laws of nature, values of the constants, and boundary conditions of the universe are fine-tuned for life refer to life in general, not merely human life. According to them, a universe with different laws, constants, and boundary conditions would almost certainly not give rise to any form of life. A common worry about such considerations is that they are ill-founded due to lack of a widely accepted definition of “life”. Another worry is that we may seriously underestimate life’s propensity to appear under different laws, constants, and boundary conditions because we are biased to assume that all possible kinds of life will resemble life as we know it. A joint response to both worries is that, according to the fine-tuning considerations, universes with different laws, constants, and boundary conditions would typically give rise to much less structure and complexity, which would seem to make them life-hostile, irrespective of how exactly one defines “life” (Lewis & Barnes 2016: 255–274).

Victor Stenger (2011) is extremely critical of considerations according to which the laws, constants, and boundary conditions of our universe are fine-tuned. According to Stenger, the form of the laws of nature is fixed by the reasonable—very weak—requirement that they be “point-of-view-invariant” in that, as he claims, the laws “will be the same in any universe where no special point of view is present” (p. 91). Luke Barnes criticizes this claim (2012: sect. 4.1), arguing that it relies on confusingly identifying point-of-view-invariance with non-trivial symmetry properties that the laws in our universe happen to exhibit. Notably, as Barnes emphasizes, neither general relativity nor the Standard Model of elementary particle physics are without conceptually viable, though perhaps empirically disfavoured, alternatives.

A further criticism by Stenger is that considerations according to which the conditions in our universe are fine-tuned for life routinely fail to consider the consequences of varying more than one parameter at a time. In response to this criticism, Barnes (2012: sect. 4.2) gives an overview of various studies such as Barr and Khan 2007 and Tegmark et al. 2006 that explore the complete parameter space of (segments of) the Standard Model and arrives at the conclusion that the life-permitting range in multidimensional parameter space is likely very small.
.

 

[nPeace]

Fine tuning and Intelligent Design require assumptions that are not supported by objective verifiable evidence. They require 'arguing from ignorance' and assumptions of what is unknown.

Some proposed that fine tuning answered the questions concerning the possibility that our universe could have formed with a wide range of values for the constant and laws of our universe, and that our constants and laws are the only way life could form, and all this is unknown,

From: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/#CondRealFineTuneForLife

1.2 Are Conditions Really Fine-Tuned for Life?
Considerations according to which the laws of nature, values of the constants, and boundary conditions of the universe are fine-tuned for life refer to life in general, not merely human life. According to them, a universe with different laws, constants, and boundary conditions would almost certainly not give rise to any form of life. A common worry about such considerations is that they are ill-founded due to lack of a widely accepted definition of “life”. Another worry is that we may seriously underestimate life’s propensity to appear under different laws, constants, and boundary conditions because we are biased to assume that all possible kinds of life will resemble life as we know it. A joint response to both worries is that, according to the fine-tuning considerations, universes with different laws, constants, and boundary conditions would typically give rise to much less structure and complexity, which would seem to make them life-hostile, irrespective of how exactly one defines “life” (Lewis & Barnes 2016: 255–274).

Victor Stenger (2011) is extremely critical of considerations according to which the laws, constants, and boundary conditions of our universe are fine-tuned. According to Stenger, the form of the laws of nature is fixed by the reasonable—very weak—requirement that they be “point-of-view-invariant” in that, as he claims, the laws “will be the same in any universe where no special point of view is present” (p. 91). Luke Barnes criticizes this claim (2012: sect. 4.1), arguing that it relies on confusingly identifying point-of-view-invariance with non-trivial symmetry properties that the laws in our universe happen to exhibit. Notably, as Barnes emphasizes, neither general relativity nor the Standard Model of elementary particle physics are without conceptually viable, though perhaps empirically disfavoured, alternatives.

A further criticism by Stenger is that considerations according to which the conditions in our universe are fine-tuned for life routinely fail to consider the consequences of varying more than one parameter at a time. In response to this criticism, Barnes (2012: sect. 4.2) gives an overview of various studies such as Barr and Khan 2007 and Tegmark et al. 2006 that explore the complete parameter space of (segments of) the Standard Model and arrives at the conclusion that the life-permitting range in multidimensional parameter space is likely very small.
.

I understand.
I see it as a matter of perspective.
I personally don't see it as wrong for one looking out from his world - the only one currently known to support life - observing the order and organization, and seeing it as fine-tuned.

If he were on an asteroid, then he might have a different perspective. He'd probably say, "The universe is HELL".

 

[nPeace]

You didn't answer any question as far as I can tell - you simply posed some more questions which I don't understand at all.

Oh. So I ask one question, and you give me a barrage of questions... This calls for an Um...

I'll meet you half way then.

First of all - can we agree that when we observe the facial features of a child and declare we can see the child's parent's or grandparent's features reflected we are making a statement about about biological heredity - yes/no?

I never even heard the term biological heredity when I was making those statements.
I learned later that it's called Heredity.
Biology is the natural science that studies life and living organisms,
So in biology, they study heredity - that is, they study how genes vary in organisms, and how they are passed on.
I'm sure you already know this. but since I haven't heard of biological heredity, I'd have to say, if you are talking about the natural way genes are passed on by reproduction, and vary in offspring, this is what I can agree with.
Genes play a role in variations.

Does the child resemble the parents because she was specifically created to do so? Or is just the natural process by which biological traits are passed on from generation to generation? Would you expect a child's biologically inherited features bear a more striking resemblance to a randomly selected unrelated human than to a sibling or a parent? Yes/no?

You ask so many questions that can't just give affirmative, or negative - then ask yes or no.
A child is not specifically designed to resemble it's parents imho, otherwise logically it would be expected that every child would have twin features.
It's a natural process build into the genes... by its maker, imho.
Genes passed on by heredity can only pass on the information in those genes. So X + Y = Result (R). R carries features and traits from both X and Y. Not necessarily equal share though, as far as I know.
I can't answer the three questions with either yes or no, so I hope I did answer. I tried.

At this point, you can add my pots, and think a little deeper about the post.

 

[Hawkins]

I think you may need to first understand the limit of our science. Science is experiment based. An experiment requires human to physically go to a place to establish such an experiment. We can't go back to the past, nor can we go to the future to establish experiments. We can't go outside of our space to another space to do experiments either. We can't confirm things or can't confirm them efficiently for matters or events don't lie inside our living realm and living time (which is right now). To humans, we can't even evidence anyone of our own million meals ever ate in our life time.

Science is the discovery of laws behind a repeatable phenomenon. Our scientists are still looking for a super theory which can unit the 4 sets of laws used in different paradigms, as the sets of physical laws at hand are not compatible with each other. It actually says that we humans don't understand how this universe works. So supernatural sometimes could only mean "humans don't know yet".

 

[shunyadragon]

I think you may need to first understand the limit of our science. Science is experiment based. An experiment requires human to physically go to a place to establish such an experiment. We can't go back to the past, nor can we go to the future to establish experiments. We can't go outside of our space to another space to do experiments either. We can't confirm things or can't confirm them efficiently for matters or events don't lie inside our living realm and living time (which is right now). To humans, we can't even evidence anyone of our own million meals ever ate in our life time.

The bold above is false. Your are requiring a Newtonian mechanical view of scientific research. as only experiment based.

Science is the discovery of laws behind a repeatable phenomenon. Our scientists are still looking for a super theory which can unit the 4 sets of laws used in different paradigms, as the sets of physical laws at hand are not compatible with each other. It actually says that we humans don't understand how this universe works. So supernatural sometimes could only mean "humans don't know yet".

The different theories of science are compatible, but what is lacking at present is the complete (GUT) unifying law that includes gravity.

Read more here:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory
Grand Unified Theory. A Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is a model in particle physics in which, at high energy, the three gauge interactions of the Standard Model which define theelectromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions, or forces, are merged into one single force.

 

[shunyadragon]

I understand.
I see it as a matter of perspective.
I personally don't see it as wrong for one looking out from his world - the only one currently known to support life - observing the order and organization, and seeing it as fine-tuned.

If he were on an asteroid, then he might have a different perspective. He'd probably say, "The universe is HELL".

It remains that the assertions of 'Intelligent Design' and Fine Tuning are philosophical/theological assumptions, and not based on Methodological Naturalism.

 

[nPeace]

It remains that the assertions of 'Intelligent Design' and Fine Tuning are philosophical/theological assumptions, and not based on Methodological Naturalism.

Fair enough. There are many philosophical assumptions made by scientists. How are they verified? Test them, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

It occurs to me that if we go with the notion that for everything we observe, experience, and/or measure, "maybe that's just how God made it", doesn't that mean we can never really know anything?

Because no matter what we're talking about, while it may appear to be one way, it could actually be something completely different. It's just that God manipulated things to make it seem some other way.

IOW, if that's possible, we can never truly know what is real and what has just been supernaturally made to seem real.

 

[shunyadragon]

Fair enough. There are many philosophical assumptions made by scientists. How are they verified? Test them, right?

Not many. The only primary assumption is Uniformitarianism of our physical existence in particular our universe. This is tested every time a theroy or hypothesis is proposed and tested, The predictability of the conclusions of the scientific method falsifies the assumption of
Uniformitarianism
.