> > 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?

According to my definition of "knowable," no, by default. To wit:

> Christians, for one, would argue yes. God is knowable, but is not subject to any scientific scrutiny.

No Christian I've ever discussed with has indicated that God is "knowable" in anything like the manner I'm talking about. God is definitely, expicitly NOT capable of being understood insofar as His methods and workings are concerned, which is what I meant when I said "knowable." If He were knowable in such manner, I suggest that he would no longer be "supernatural."

If when you say that something is "knowable" you mean that we are aware of its presence, then that is different, and my original statement does not apply.

> I feel this is really the "default" belief

SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS, NUB! L2P

> 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.

Absolutely. Occam's razor is not an inviolate hard-and-fast law under which we all operate, violation of which is punishable by DEATH. It is a guideline and nothing more.

Oh, by the way, QED.