> Well, yes and no. The trouble is, the instant
>it's understood, it's natural. "Supernatural," by
>definition, means "operating outside the known
>laws of nature." Therefore, by definition,
>science can never support supernatural phenomena;
>if it's gained a body of evidence to support it,
>it's become a natural phenomenon.

Right. But the question is, can things be "knowable" that are never-the-less outside the realm of the natural? Christians, for one, would argue yes. God is knowable, but is not subject to any scientific scrutiny.

I argue no, but I think that's just as much a belief as the Christian belief is. I also happen to believe it's more likely to be true than any other belief, because of your friend Occam's razor, and because I feel this is really the "default" belief--in essence, a non-belief in the supernatural, rather than an active rejection of it. I also believe it's the most rational belief. But when we get into the discussion of "rational" I think we get back to the idea of rejecting the supernatural by default because of the scientific method, so we're really back where we started.

>> Is it possible that supernatural explanations
>>outside of science may be the correct
>>explanations? Sure, it might be that way.
>
> I guess this is as good a time as any to
>interject my old friend Occam's Razor. In a
>nutshell, it says that, of competing theories,
>the simplest is most likely to be correct. How do
>you decide on the "simplest" theory? Well, in the
>macroscopic case, it would be the one that
>requires the fewest deviations from known natural
>laws and observed evidence.

And I agree totally. But of course Occam's Razor is just a guideline. It's entirely possible the most freaking complex theory is the true one. Just not as likely.

-- Dave