Hypothetically Supernatual

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A definition is required:

sci·ence

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Google definition

Facts are what scientists are looking for. Science is not fact; science is a process to help discover facts about the universe.

You're right. I misstated. Science supports its theories with facts. Science is not necessarily fact, but it doesn't claim to be.

In context, this is my definition of science, "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method"

Science gives us the closest thing we can have to objective fact, and that's mainly because everything must follow strict guidelines so that others can reaffirm or disprove said facts with further observations and experiments. The opposition, religion, and I use opposition chiefly because religious people have become self-appointed naysayers of science despite it having a tangible and beneficial effect on their daily lives, espouses the idea that fact is found in holy books. These books are in turn translated, shared, and consolidated by other people whose methods are not available for review and must be simply "accepted". It doesn't take rocket science to see the evident flaw in that methology.

Related fun fact: I revisited the Star Trek TNG episode "Who Watches the Watchers?" (Season three, it is on Netflix) and it's rather relevant to the discussion.

Also, is there some kind of Christian code that you have to talk about homosexuality as if it actually hurts people whenever you can? It's a little tiresome. If you're going to champion doctrine, at least pick the good stuff. Sell all your possessions and work charity while stressing love and acceptance to those in dire need. Or was that part of the Bible figurative instead of literal?

Religion is not in opposition of science. Science answers the question "How?" whereas religion answers "Why?" That said, no one questions the unfalsifiability of religion because beliefs don't have to adhere to the standard of falsifiability.

Originally posted by Astner
Religion is not in opposition of science. Science answers the question "How?" whereas religion answers "Why?" That said, no one questions the unfalsifiability of religion because beliefs don't have to adhere to the standard of falsifiability.

I totally agree with you, but it seems a lot of Christians don't.

Originally posted by Astner
Religion is not in opposition of Science.

A lot of times it is. Religious fanatics still believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, despite scientific evidence that proves otherwise.

Originally posted by Firefly218
A lot of times it is. Religious fanatics still believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, despite scientific evidence that proves otherwise.

Ya, religious fanatics are the problem.

Originally posted by Astner
Religion is not in opposition of science. Science answers the question "How?" whereas religion answers "Why?" That said, no one questions the unfalsifiability of religion because beliefs don't have to adhere to the standard of falsifiability.

No, religon says "this is the truth, because I say it is. Don't question me" whereas science says "I think this is the tuth but I could be mistaken. Please question me to make sure I hold up to standards".

Removing religious beliefs which proclaim truth from the standard used to measure objectivity is sophistry, nothing more. If a claim is made, the onus is on those making it to prove up. Religion can't prove up. Therefore, no one has any reason to take these claims as fact by any definition of the word. This especially becomes a problem when religious insist on dictating the behaviors of others, even against their will.

Stupidity and over-confidence are a crappy combination.

People saying religion is immune from the burden of proof boggle my mind. Kind of like people attempting to make free will independent of pre-existing caused beings. Like, good luck with that, bro.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
People saying religion is immune from the burden of proof boggle my mind. Kind of like people attempting to make free will independent of pre-existing caused beings. Like, good luck with that, bro.

And why they need to prove something that is supposed to be based on faith, is beyond me.

Just because someone or something has supernatural powers and can perform 'miracles' doesn't make them a God or worthy of worship. I would recognise their power and maybe try to become super best friends with them but thats about it.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Just because someone or something has supernatural powers and can perform 'miracles' doesn't make them a God or worthy of worship. I would recognise their power and maybe try to become super best friends with them but thats about it.

Like Superman?

Superman can be a huge ass, so you'd better be his friend. Or worship. Or spit-shine his pecs, whatever he demands.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Superman can be a huge ass, so you'd better be his friend. Or worship. Or spit-shine his pecs, whatever he demands.

But if superman really existed, then people like you and I would never get the chance to meet him. The most we would see is clips on TV. In a way, if superman was real, nothing would really change in my life. Just weird… 😮‍💨

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But if superman really existed, then people like you and I would never get the chance to meet him. The most we would see is clips on TV. In a way, if superman was real, nothing would really change in my life. Just weird… 😮‍💨

He never wanted people to worship, him he just wanted to be a common day reporter and when he needed to save the world

So people met Superman everyday of the week.

Originally posted by Supra
He never wanted people to worship, him he just wanted to be a common day reporter and when he needed to save the world

So people met Superman everyday of the week.

But how long could he really keep that up? 50 years? 100 years? a thousand years? Eventually, he will be discovered, then it will just be like I described.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But how long could he really keep that up? 50 years? 100 years? a thousand years? Eventually, he will be discovered, then it will just be like I described.

As "smart" as we area compared to how smart he is, yes, pretty much forever.

Jesus flat out told people he was the Son of God and performed miracles and they still didn't believe.

Originally posted by Supra

Jesus flat out told people he was the Son of God and performed miracles and they still didn't believe.

How do you know Jesus performed miracles. Were you there?

Originally posted by Supra
As "smart" as we area compared to how smart he is, yes, pretty much forever.

Jesus flat out told people he was the Son of God and performed miracles and they still didn't believe.

Jesus was a great teacher. He was not superman or the son of god. The miracles were added a long after his death.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jesus was a great teacher. He was not superman or the son of god. The miracles were added a long after his death.

Im just getting back to your reference of would people find out who he really was.. I don't think so.

He has many options, leave the planet, go to the fortress of solitude, go back to Kansas, change jobs. Or just be Superman.