(September 2, 2012 at 8:18 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: My point, Atom, is that science and history don't have a predisposition against the supernatural. They have a preconception against what's not proven.Scholars of Ancient history seek to determine probabilities by weighing data methodologically. For ancient history "what is not proven" is virtually everything, so if ancient historians actually operated from this preconception it would wipe out ancient history. What you said can't possibly be true.
As I thought you already pointed out, science by definition can't study the supernatural successfully. This doesn't disprove the supernatural. In fact there are a lot of things that science can't prove. Science can only draw conclusions about probability on a lot of subjects and many topics are inaccessible to science. Think a bit before asking.
Quote:I mention the Placebo Effect because, on the surface, it sounds like New Age woo. Your attitude can affect whether or not you recover from an illness? Really? Yes, really. Wow, OK then, let's study this further and factor this effect in to all our medical reviews of the effectiveness of medicine.
The reason your earlier argument made no sense to me is that I wouldn't consider the placebo effect a candidate supernatural occurrence. After death out of body experiences is a better example. There are some pretty well documented cases, but the subject can't be studied methodologically for a variety of reasons, such as rarity of the event.
Quote:If the Resurrection really were real, if there are multiple independent attestations of the dead coming back to life,Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is especially true for very rare events.
Christianity is grounded in history, the facts of science, the rules of logic, and verifiable biblical truths.