I reject most religious ideas that are based on old science. And I retain those ideas that do not contradict new science. I would like to put some religious ideas on a scientific basis in the sense that our current understanding of science allows them to be true. Not a proof, just a possible existence theorem.

Now you guys have amply described how that approach over the centuries has left smaller and smaller space in theory for the existence of anything that we might call supernatural. But regardless I will pursue my agenda, as I expect you to pursue yours.

One aspect of my agenda is to define the supernatural. Once defined we can then decide if supernatural effects exist. I earlier suggested breaking the speed of light limit as a possible definition. If that is acceptabe, then we can discuss the various supernatural effects that science has uncovered and/or predicted with established theories.

However, it seems that the definition of supernatural that satisfies the atheists posting on this forum is anything that science cannot or will not investigate. That definition is so circular that there is no room for argument.

• What is supernatural? - johnpowell - April 5, 2001 - 22:24 UTC