[thomaswest]

Re 67. What would constitute proof for you of a supernatural intervention from a scientific perspective?

I think you have agreed that "God did it" is inadequate, because this is an argument from ignorance, which you reject on philosophical grounds.

In my earlier post, I suggested that repeatable, verifiable evidence of a supernatural/unnatural force would make this force natural, by definition, and thus dethrone gods.

There is another notion, namely, that gods or God can intervene willy-nilly changing everything according to their whim and omnipotence. It seems to me that this notion would destroy every concept in objective reality, methological determinism, and usual common sense.

But this view of an invisible, supernatural deity intervening randomly from time to time according to pleasures, and who is impervious to cause and effect, seems impossible of scientific examination.

[nmh]

I don't know WHO your god is but my God doesn't have YOUR limitations or FINITE knowledge. Perhaps you should investigate the Judeo Christian God.

When I run across ignorant people like you ... I am amazed. You have NO evidence that man "evolved" from an ape or any other animal, however YOU chose to believe that. You can't explain, how a heart started beating or how an eye is more sophisticated than a camera of any kind yet your still CHOOSE to believe that a human being "evolved" from innate material. It's totally absurd!

How can anyone reason with someone who CHOOSES to believe in scifi fairy tales? The evidence of HIS design is staring you right in the face. Look in the mirror. Just look at yourself and the sophistication of how your own body works. On its face, it denies your hypotheses. Your belief in "evolution" is illogical and lacks ANY evidence.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What would constitute proof for you of a supernatural intervention from a scientific perspective?

Because the word "supernatural" is scientifically and objectively arbitrary (i.e. subjective), it is useless except for the purpose of politicizing free inquiry. Personally I attach no value to the word because it, like the word "natural," could apply wholly to all of existence. It is a non-falsifiable qualifier from the get go.

If one wishes to take up the position that "science cannot investigate the supernatural," then let him know he has taken up a philosophy that will color each and every hypothesis as well as the interpretation of the evidence. This position, useful as it may prove both intellectually and practically, is not subject to scientific validation.