Can the scientific method be used to test the supernatural world


(Shawn T Murphy) #1

I agree with your sentiments, but not with arrogance of many men of science. Few know their limitations, whether deGrasse Tyson or Hawking, and show humility for the things they don’t know. Their speculations do not come from a holistic basis.

There are a number of scientific methods that can be used to examine the spiritual world, but with our a healthy worldview, the experiments are worthless.


Are there oppositions, or should there be opposition to teaching both Evolution and YEC in a classroom?
#2

Most of them do know their limitations.

Did you mean to say “without a healthy worldview, the experiments are worthless” ???

What sort of worldview is required? Why would an experiment would require a healthy worldview, whatever that is? What scientific methods are used to examine the spiritual? Please provide details.


(Shawn T Murphy) #3

Watch this youtube of Neil and you might see what I mean. One thing that a scientist should know is that you cannot perform experiments on sentient beings without being able to rely on a repeatable response. But you can use forensic science to draw conclusions about their behavior. We can only rely on forensic science to investigate sensual, spiritual beings.

For example, you can run experiments all day long on ghosts, but if you cannot see them and put a polygraph on them, you are just waisting your time.

There are thousands of documented cases of messages from beyond the grave, not just near death experiences. A forensic comparative study of these can quickly result in a number of objective truths. For example, if you compare the three works from Johannes Greber in German (1874–1944), Reverend G. Vale Owen in England (1869–1931) and Beatrice Brunner in Switzerland (1910–1983) you will discover the same information about Jesus was provided in three different countries, to three different audiences and two different languages.


#4

People believe all sorts of things. Messages from beyond the grave haven’t been verified scientifically.


(Shawn T Murphy) #5

The definition of historical fact is information verified by three independent sources is it not? Hundreds of scientific minds, including mine, have compared the three independent sources that I have referenced. They exist for any scientist to analyze forensically.


(Dominik Kowalski) #6

Could they even at all? I feel like this would be an obvious barrier


(Shawn T Murphy) #7

There are a number of spiritual laws at play keeping these truths to be published on the web for everyone to read. They are 1) You must first search before you can find, and 2) do throw pearls to the swine.

It does mean that every scientific mind that wants to discover these truths can using the forensic methods. Try it yourself!


(Dominik Kowalski) #8

The forensic method here means a critical analysis from available data from eyewitnesses, does it? To be clear, I´m open to this and think that there have been enough verified cases about the “beyond the realm”, be it messages, NDE and so on. Especially NDEs from people who can give informations about events in the distance, where they cannot possibly have seen or heard anything. My point is always, that the west has cut off an aspect of reality and collectively labelled it unreliable/untrue. Doing this to all the cultures in Latin America, Asia and Africa whilst calling them backwards seems irrational and like throwing away data without giving it a look.


#9

That’s a new one on me. But name a dead person you have communicated with and how you know it’s true.


(Shawn T Murphy) #10

I already named three above and told you how it is true. When the same thing is taught in two different languages, in three different time frames and by three different mediums this meets any test of three independent sources. Each of the sources passed the tests in 1 John 4. So, the common messages from these three sources are considered historical fact and fulfill Jesus promise to send the spirit of truth (John 14:17 15:26 16:13), in my opinion. What better proof do you want? This is three times better than just trusting the Bible, although much of what is said is verified by this fourth independent source.


(Shawn T Murphy) #11

Yes, I agree. The most recent source I provided above has 3,000+ of audio and video recordings of the medium speaking. The other two are written text received though automatic writing. So this is three, first person witnesses to start a forensic analysis.


(Mark D.) #12

I’m not always a splitter but this seems an unhelpful label. When it comes to methods used for determining historical accuracy why not call it the good history method. It certainly isn’t the scientific method and probably borrows more esteem than it merits in terms of verifiability and testability. If the number of original sources do not increase, how can further application of this method allow for improvement or refinement?


(George Brooks) #13

You can’t make God, or God’s providence, an independent variable. So science applied to the super- or supra-natural is impossible.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #14

This sounds like an example of covergent evolution with a deep underlying homology similar to how NDEs tend to generally be in line with whatever a person already believed before having them:


#15

Let’s set up our own experiment, okay?


(Shawn T Murphy) #16

This was my point in the beginning of the post. If you are dealing with sentient beings, the only reliable science is forensics. In forensic science you do not go in with a pre-defined model, rather it is the evidence that leads the discovery. My forensic analysis has shown, for example, that the Heisenberg principle is very important. That is, the observers in the experiment drive the outcome of it.

Neil deGrasse Tyson suggested an experiment with ghosts in the YouTube I referenced that would never work. And this has been the result of many attempts by scientists to test ghosts, mediums or clairvoyants. The simple fact that you are trying to observe them changes the outcome.


#17

Why don’t we set up our own experiment, okay? Name some dead person who would like to communicate with us.


Are there oppositions, or should there be opposition to teaching both Evolution and YEC in a classroom?
#18

So it’s all beyond scientific observation and is therefore unscientific.


#19

You should show some humility yourself.


#20

So in your view, how would we set up an experiment?