[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

True, but "supernatural" is just a word we use for fields that we really don't know shit about. It doesn't mean there's nothing to it at all. The field of Astronomy used to be "supernatural".

I have to respectfully disagree. Just because we don't know anything about a subject, it is not automatically assigned a supernatural label. Quantum physics, to the most part, is barely understood by the scientists who have doctorates in it. Yet, I think we can say that there is nothing supernatural about it.

"God did it" may be lazy, but so is concluding that there is nothing to the universe beyond what our limited minds can currently test scientifically.

Not sure if you are referring to something I said, but, I definitely did not imply that. It's quite simple, what we don't know yet...we don't know yet and just because we don't know yet, there's one of three possibilities; we will eventually know, we just wont ever know or we know some of it but not all.

We really don't know anything about the brain, and about any kind of force that has been vaguely described as "spirtuality" (but can be theorized and speculated about, based on our limited experiences, in a million different ways.)

Again, I respectfully disagree with you. We know a lot about the brain. Just in the last 20 or so years with advances in medical technology scientists and doctors been able to delve more into how the brain works. As for spirituality, there's probably almost as many definitions for it as there is for love...another intangible, but, touches so many people.

I tend to think that the "truth" - unattainable to us currently, would blow our minds with regards to the workings of our brain, and the "spirtual".

I have no concept of one central 'truth' that explains everything. That concept makes no sense to me. I'm aware that there is the 'theory of everything' in the scientific community, but, I don't think that's what people are referring to when they bring up the idea of 'the truth'. We humans like things wrapped in nice neat little packages, unfortunately, that's not how things work in reality.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

It sounds like you just said: Supernatural evidence requires natural evidence.

If some-thing is supernatural then it would not have all natural qualities right?

You are then dismissing something for purposely being something it is not.

You kind of caught on to what I was trying to say. In other words, there is no such thing as supernatural evidence, so there isn't going to be any. It was more a play on Carl Sagan's statement of: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

If a supernatural "answer" could be proved then it would not require faith. Which is again a fundamental quality to this approach.

If a supernatural 'thing' was ever proven to exist then it would cease to be supernatural.

It seems sitting back a waiting for "evidence" is a more lazy approach

The only people required to provide the proof or evidence are the ones making the supernatural claims. If I claim I saw Big Foot or a ghost, who would be the one expected to provide the proof? Me or you? Then once I've provided some kind of evidence, that evidence can then be dissected to prove or disprove my claim.