Well, it would be better of you not to use 'supernatural' for such an approach towards phenomena in which you believe. Call it something but not 'supernatural'. In the traditional sense, it refers to
1. of or relating to an order of universe existing beyond the observable universe.
2. departing from something usual or normal so as to transcend the laws of nature.
etc. (Encylopeadia of Britannica)
Any such approach should not allow any room for belief in some God or things like that as it is beyond the scientific realm. It should not also allow any moral implication on an inidivdual's approach towards his ways and life.
Testability of your ideas?? I'm not sure about that. But, one thing is for sure, science is not the name of asking big questions such as:
What is life?
What is consciousness?
What is energy?
What is force?
Is there God?
In fact, we ask smaller questions first and then proceed to find out whether we can answer these huge questions. Temporarily, we come up with mathematical expressions and physical relations but the 'real' understanding of these phenomena is, indeed, something that we don't address directly rather through 'testable' ideas. Isn't it like that?
I won't either agree or disagree with your ideas. Simply because, as you know, I am not educated enough (of course, I am in high school) to approach this stuff.
Either way, the best method of understanding if there is life out there after death is by experiencing itself, of course.
Personally, I like agnostics. Agnosticism is philosohically a more comfortable way of approaching all this stuff. I don't know if they say that T.H. Huxley's agnostic argument is philosophically now a failure but I think that socially it is quite good and better than plain,rigid atheism.
There is a lot I have to learn. Haven't I?

Yasir.

• I am impressed with your maturity - yanniru - March 23, 2002 - 00:34 UTC