Exposing the 'supernatural'.

very true, and I had actually remade the post because I realized I forgot to clarify to reference the fundamentalists. You know, the sort that sit debating with Bill Nye on TV specials.

well this is similar to going 'no one's photographed God therefore religion is fake' you can't really force someone to stop believing. i've dealt with spirits my whole life so to me i know they're real. i also know that the majority of 'hauntings' and 'supernatural' occurrences can be explained, so i am a skeptic in that regard. like i'll watch a ghost hunting show and spend half of the episode yelling at the tv what they should do [investigator 'omg what was that noise?!' me 'the house settling?']

Ok fine so I also do consult necromancy at times especially after the passing of my brother and I know it is real though I can't prove it to anyone in any way. But all (or atleast all the ones I've watched) 'ghost hunting' shows are fake anyway.

I can't believe you mentioned those debates. I watch them all the time. Even on YouTube. Epic. It is the kind of staff that pushes the human mind to the limits.

I suppose I adapted to the inability to show or give proof by learning to recognize it as more of an experiential/subjective truth rather than a scientific one. I look at it as a Philosophical discussion so I look for logical explanation and relationships over scientific evidence or proofs.

Of course when I can find scientific theories, phenomena, or physics that draw parallels or lend validity I certainly use those as well. Such parallels can often provide insight through comparison.

As for those debates, some of them are indeed very intriguing. Though I always remember the one person who failed quite badly at presenting his case compared to Bill Nye. My favorite was Nye mentioning that there are trees in this world, living right now, that are older than the 7000 year age of the earth as presented by creationist faith. I think the man just wasn't quite as prepared for the debate as Nye was, because he had no counter at all ready for that sort of a statement.

Very embarrassing when a religious individual thinks that the god of their religion is responsible for creation. Combine that with a literal interpretation of their creation myth and an ignorance on evolution you get a disaster. The creationist should be informed on evolution and focusing the arguments on first cause. But that's for onother thread.

Agreed. Back on to the topic of the supernatural. ^_^

I am wondering if some sort of consensus can be agreed to for what would define something -as- supernatural to begin with. For example, for purposes of the discussion, is it defined as any phenomena that occurs without/outside of normal scientific explanation?

That is usually the definition I use, and is probably the crux to the situation in my opinion. As it becomes by definition something rendered outside of the ability to use science to explain it. At least in my current level of scientific understanding. Quantum physics, probability, and such is a little outside my scope of understanding so I imagine there is a slim possibility proofs and evidence may exist in that field. But I am unable to utilize it myself.

Other than that, at least there are documented accounts that can be picked apart. As far as recent events, I think the Indiana demon house is a favorite for interest. I dug up a Huffington post article;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/latoya-ammons-demon-possession_n_4681127.html

It includes embedded links with key phrases that lets you explore sources and related/previous articles. One of the first ones is to a USA-today article that looks to go into decent depth. Some have those annoying magazine site ads though.

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.