Exposing the 'supernatural'.

The things in that article may be true. What would anyone gain from lying about that? That depends on whether the source is reliable. But such things i may accept only when i witness them myself.

The thing with science is that it is concerned with physical phenomena, therefore the scientific method can be utilised only to measure physical phenomena. When we are talking about supernatural (a term I hate) things, we cannot speak of them on the same plane as that of physical phenomena.

I always equate trying to prove the spiritual via scientific methods as attempting to measure the temperature of your room with a ruler. It isn't possible. How can you use something physical to measure something which is 1) not physical and 2) does not concern the physical realms?

Now I do agree, people spout their beliefs as though they are fact, however, I have no issue with people believing something to be true. As long as they can accept that their belief can never be proven to be universally true and the only evidence they will ever gain is expierential data recorded subjectively i.e. their own experiences.

Now, where the spiritual and scientific method shouls always coincide is the fact that science is changeable, it is never concrete. The theory of evolution is still just a theory because it is only the best explanation of creation we have yet- it has the most evidence, but if some piece of evidence came along to completely change this science would adapt and come up with a new theory. Most people involved with religions can never change their modes of thinking despite what they experience- this is not a wholesome nor scientific apporach to undertake spiritual workings.

Once you completely believe something to be true you lose all sight of possibility. Whereas if you simply believe that due to your current experiences that something is most likely to be the case, but know also that it may not be and further experience could change this, then you are, in my humble opinion, practicing your spirituality in a more scientific and valid manner than most.

I agree. No matter how much you believe an act considered 'supernatural' to be true, it can never be demonstrated to a second observer. But nonetheless no one should force anyone to abandon their beliefs.

Honestly I often do challenge evolution myself, but at the core of my belief I consider the big bang as the most closest attempt that science has at the explanation of 'creation'. After all it is clear that the inorganic portion of the universe precedes all known species.

I am a bit pragmatic when it comes to the ideas and influences of god (or gods). But when I consider things from the perspective of there being some sort of omnipresent entity or force, I try to logically marry ideas together.

When it comes to creation, I find a comfortable perspective in the idea that while God may have not created the earth and sun and stars and animals (etc) directly, he may have been the force/intelligence behind setting up the rules of causality in which these things exist. Basically, he creates the formulas of cause and effect. Physics, motion, time, energy, and the other facets at the root of reality and how it reacts. Both spirituality (karma, spirit, consciousness, learning, choice, free will, etc) and physically. Then like some cosmic, long-running math problem he/she/it kick-started the formula into motion and is simply observing the results as they develop.

In essence, God may not have created/evolved man, but he may have created the process of evolution, and man was one of the results. He did not create planets and suns and galaxies, but he may have created the rules and physics that let them form. That sort of thing.