Comment 22 by Nordic11

Science is only equipped to study the natural world of matter and energy You believe there is no evidence for anything supernatural, but the only evidence you will except is based on the scientific method, which again is illequipped to study anything outside of matter and energy, the natural world.

There is definitely a logical fallacy in there somewhere!

Read these three lines(above) again, please.

You say that scientists will only accept evidence that can be explored/explained using the scientific method, but then you make a leap to imply that there is other 'evidence' available to both scientists and non-scientists that is being discounted by scientists because of the supernatural nature of this evidence! First of all, what is this 'evidence'? How did you come by it? Secondly, why is this evidence unsuitable to be studied scientifically? Third, why would anyone, scientist or layman, have the slightest bit of interest in trying to ascertain the truth of evidence that you, with the stroke of a pen, have declared is beyond examination?! Lastly, how do you propose that the 'supernatural evidence' you say exists be examined? Surely, by definition, 'evidence' is that which can be examined. If it can't be examined, why do you consider it evidence?

You then move on to to say:

If you want to infer that nothing exists outside of the natural world, that is your perogative, but their are no observations, measurement or series of experiments to back up your claim so it is not based on science. Your claim is based on philosophy.

I think you need to consider what you've written here.

You've intoduced the concept of a supernatural; you have also ensured, by the characteristics you have given this supernatural world(but which you haven't decribed in any detail), that science can never investigate it. However, you seem to take comfort by saying that this world that you have invented should be respected because science cannot study it, even though the only reason science is so handicapped is that you have set the rules of the game in that way! So,in effect, you have said absolutely nothing that is actually an indictment of science's limitations; you've merely indicted science by proposing a world that exists only in your imagination and that you say is off-limits.

What 'science' can certainly say is that there is no evidence that anything exists outside the natural world. If you have a theory or 'evidence' regarding a supernatural world, please reveal it!