[continued from previous message]   
      
   > Not by definition. Entirely for practical reasons, because the   
   > supernatural is characterized by a lack of discernible properties.   
   > There's nothing for science to grab onto.   
   >   
   >> Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and "special   
   >> revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from what I   
   >> know of the universe and from life things like design, intelligence,   
   >> powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty, morality. So   
   >> "natural theology" may identify attributes of a supernatural agent.   
   >   
   > How can you identify attributes of a supernatural agent without first   
   > establishing that such an agent exists?   
   >   
   >> What position would you/do you take?   
   >   
   > My position is that science is our only way of gathering reliable   
   > knowledge of the universe. Theology, revelation, philosophy, etc. don't   
   > do it.   
   >   
   >> An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality   
   >> threshold to a such a degree as to give some individuals full   
   >> conviction of supernatural involvement.   
   >   
   > Don't forget that a sufficiently advanced technology is   
   > indistinguishable from magic. If you see something that's physically   
   > impossible, as far as you know, it's either a miracle or you were wrong   
   > about what's possible. How would you tell the difference?   
      
   I started addressing each of your responses individually, but decided   
   that a consolidated statement might be more coherent and constructive.   
      
   I think that what we are really debating is epistemology.   
      
   The Wikipedia article on this, for example, points to a philosophical   
   rabbit hole. In any case, science (empiricism) occupies a unique   
   position, insofar as the scientific method provides a means of testing,   
   refining and accumulating knowledge of the physical world, utilising   
   falsifiability and reproducibility to provide a capacity for   
   self-correction.   
      
   And it does this rather well. Indeed, our modern technological society   
   is built on science, among other things. Science rightly enjoys   
   prominence in the epistemological framework.   
      
   Given that, two avenues of discussion come to mind:   
      
   1. The legitimacy of other epistemological categories (including   
   religion), and their relationship to science.   
      
   2. The double-edged nature of science itself.   
      
   What do I mean by that? Science relies on cause and effect. In fact, I   
   wonder if one  definition of "natural" might be that which is subject to   
   causality (quantum acausality notwithstanding).   
      
   What if science itself identifies non-causal phenomena? Now, if I   
   understand correctly, you are saying this can never happen; rather, what   
   may appear to be non-causal can only be categorised as "currently   
   unexplained naturally".   
      
   This is the nub of the issue I think. You seem to have upfront excluded   
   epistemologies apart from science (as good as it is). This provides a   
   jusfication to leave it at "currently unexplained naturally" rather than   
   considering supernatural explanation, because you assume that there is   
   no other legitimate means of acquiring knowledge, and the best we can do   
   is park it in the science baskets of "to do" or "too hard" (which takes   
   us back to 1 above).   
      
   This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that   
   scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing   
   evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence from   
   science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach of science.   
      
   Of course, even at that point you may say, so what, science is the only   
   valid epistemology, therefore whatever your "supernatural" may be, we   
   have no way of knowing anything about it. Nothing to see here folks. But   
   to adopt this position would be itself an act of faith.   
      
   To take different tack: maybe there is a God, and maybe that God created   
   the world and us, and maybe this has consequences that have profound   
   personal implications. To exclude consideration of this possibility   
   because of the limits of the scientific method would be to misapply   
   science; especially so if science was loudly pointing us to the non-causal.   
      
   >   
   >> Biblical miracles served that purpose (not arguing for their veracity   
   >> here, just using them to illustrate the principle). For example:   
   >>   
   >> Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him   
   >> to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had   
   >> dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.   
   >> When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a   
   >> long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against   
   >> them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on   
   >> the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were   
   >> terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear. But   
   >> immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take heart; it is I. Do not   
   >> be afraid.”   
   >>   
   >> And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you   
   >> on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and   
   >> walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he   
   >> was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” Jesus   
   >> immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him,   
   >> “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” And when they got into the   
   >> boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying,   
   >> “Truly you are the Son of God.”   
   >>   
   >> (Matthew 14:22-33)   
   >   
   > So many problems with that story, from a theological perspective alone,   
   > but no need to go into them here. But what does a cheap magic trick tell   
   > you about God?   
   >   
   >>>> "Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views   
   >>>> regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different   
   >>>> conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesn’t support their   
   >>>> viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore almost   
   >>> every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine supports   
   >>> their views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think the   
   >>> evidence for PE or DE would be.   
   >>>> Personally, I agree with Rau that none of the models has a complete   
   >>>> model with adequate explanations for all of the evidence."   
   >>>   
   >>> Nor would we expect to have such a model. If we did, science would be   
   >>> done. We would know everything.   
   >>>   
   >>>> https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/   
   >>>> science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate#   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)