Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[SteveII]

The physical world.

Since you are struggling here, let me help you:
Conversations revolving around religion often find individuals looking to science as either a source of validation for their beliefs and opinions, or point to the limitations of scientific knowledge to argue what about what science may or may not be able to determine. In the middle of all of this debate are specific terms with very specific meanings, that are often used incorrectly. Most of these terms also have multiple meanings, and which definition applies when, is determined by context. The purpose of this essay will be, in part, to clarify which definitions apply to the topic at hand, and why. The primary terms are: reality, universe, and nature. In addition to these terms, is a misunderstanding/misuse of their derivatives and commonly associated terms. Such as: realistic, unrealistic, natural, unnatural, possible, impossible, probable, improbable, plausible, and implausible. If these terms are misunderstood, it can lead to a greater misunderstanding about the philosophies underlying science and therefore a misunderstanding of what science is, and is not. This is a very sobering realization considering that science and scientific knowledge are something utilized by both the religious and non-religious alike. This makes it of the utmost importance that the terms be used correctly, and consistently.
 
One of the biggest issues, as I see it, is that some of these terms are used interchangeably in colloquial language (much as the word “theory” means something very different in casual conversation than when it is used in a scientific sense). The first 3 terms we will discuss are reality, universe, and nature, and these terms are where we will start because they are used erroneously used interchangeably as synonyms of one another.
 
First, we will start off with what science is, but I will try to be brief here. After this, and despite the fact that it pains me to do so and is a proverbial nightmare to the instructor of rhetoric and composition, we will need to explicitly define the terms (reality, universe, and nature), their derivatives, and the related terms, before we proceed.
 
Science, as defined by Merriam-Webster is: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method
 
Science, as it is defined above, is therefore the knowledge attained via the scientific method. The scientific method is generically described as a sequence of steps: Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion(s). As many science educators note when teaching the fundamentals of science, this process need not be linear. For instance, one may not be able to draw any meaningful conclusions from their experiment and instead they may need to revise their hypothesis or completely scrap it. An experiment is often performed more than once, and often in conjunction with other experiments and sources of information that are intended to support and/or falsify them. A good scientist doesn’t simply look for information that validates their hypothesis, but also attempts to prove their own hypothesis incorrect.
 
There is still something lacking in our defining of science, and that is the philosophy underlying it. For now we will table this discussion, as I want to define the other relevant terms first before discussing naturalism and methodological naturalism.
 
For defining the primary terms (reality, universe, and nature), we will stick with Merriam-Webster definitions.
Reality: the quality or state of being real
True: being in accordance with the actual state of affairs
 
 
Therefore “reality” is what is true (or real), irrespective of whether we know it or not. This makes reality a concept, because defining everything that comprises reality, would require us to know everything, and we of course don’t know everything. For example, humans “discovered” North America when we first arrived thousands of years ago, and then humans from western civilization “discovered” it again only a few short centuries ago. Was it ever true that North America didn’t exist? (let’s limit that question to the timespan of the humans; so, over the course of the last 2-4 million years). It is true that there were periods of time when the majority of humans did not know about it, but in reality, it existed even though we were unaware it.
 
Reality is something we are therefore constantly trying to define, while simultaneously refining our prior attempts. This is irrespective of whether or not we are talking about the philosophy of science or philosophy in a more general sense. What is perceived by us to be true or not, is irrelevant with respect to reality. Reality IS what is real, regardless of whether or not we know it. We should therefore be very careful and cautious when we discuss “reality” so as not to erroneously say something we cannot validate. Reality might very well mean that there are multiple universes that operate in a similar fashion to the tv show “Rick and Morty,” but it would be erroneous to conclude that this is true because there is no evidence to suggest it is so. What I mean to say in this case, is that if we are not careful in discussing “reality,” we may end up incorrectly equating fiction (a product of our imagination) with it.
 
That leads us to our second term, the universe. Once again, from Merriam-Webster: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated
 
This means that when we discuss “the universe,” we are discussing reality as we understand it. The universe, therefore, is a model of reality. The universe is NOT synonymous with reality, nor is the reciprocal true.
 
In recent decades, the multiverse hypothesis has continued to gain traction and admirers. It is an alternate model of reality, but not a widely accepted one because it lacks evidential support. This doesn’t mean it is an incorrect model, but without direct evidence to suggest it is accurate (or at least more accurate than the universe model of reality), it would be illogical to conclude that it is more likely to be true than the universe model of reality.
 
What can or cannot happen in the universe, is defined by what is and is not realistic. Or to put it another way, what is true about reality is true about the universe. These truths may be unknown to us, but this does not mean that they are unknowable.

For three paragraphs you are setting up your  equivocations for 'universe' and 'reality'. You need that because you want the supernatural later in your thesis to come under the purview of science. However, you have a problem from the start. If the supernatural exists, it does so independently of the universe and has, by all understanding of it, existed prior to the universe. If the supernatural is part of reality but predated the universe, then it follows that the universe and reality are very different things. 

 
Now we get to the third (and perhaps most problematic) term, nature. We have to be more selective in which definition we use here, because “nature” is also used to define individual characteristics and behaviors of organisms. So when we talk about “nature” as it applies to the fundamentals of science from a philosophical perspective, we mean something very different than when we talk about someone’s “good nature.”
 
From Merriam-Webster again:
Nature: the external world in its entirety
 
We are now faced with a new concept in this definition, the concept of “external” and “internal.” What does this mean with respect to the word “nature” and why are the words “external” and “internal” absent with respect to the definitions of “reality” and “universe?” In this context, the word “external” means “outside the individual human mind.” When we discuss nature, what we mean is that we are studying the universe (and by extension, we are attempting to study reality) external to our own imaginations. Which is to say, nature is the what we can verify is objectively true about our universe (our model of reality), which means that we have reasons and evidence external to our own imaginations that suggest that it is real/true.
 
Equally as important is to discuss what the reciprocal terms do and do not mean. Let’s start with unnatural and supernatural then.
 
Merriam-Webster again:
Supernatural: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
Unnatural: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
 
As you can see, unnatural and supernatural do overlap with one another. Something that is supernatural, would also be unnatural, and vice versa. But note that the definitions I’ve selected here for these 2 words, defines them primarily by what they are not instead of what they are. This is because these terms are the opposite of “natural.” They are explanations that are not consistent with “the world in its entirety.” They are therefore explanations that are unverified, pure speculation, and are indistinguishable from the human imagination/fiction.

 
Supernatural and unnatural are not the same thing. Supernatural is outside of the natural world (our universe). Unnatural just mean something did not happen naturally. I can make an unnatural tree by grafting two together. I cannot in any way effect a supernatural cause. While something that is supernatural would be unnatural, it does not work that something that is unnatural is supernatural (it may or may not be). However there is a nuance you are missing. When we discuss the supernatural, we are talking about supernatural causes that have effects in the natural world. 

"Unverified" is not the same thing as "indistinguishable from the human imagination/fiction". You still have the effect which is real in the natural world. You still have science to rule out natural causes. 

What we do NOT mean to say is that supernatural/unnatural explanations are inherently impossible by definition. Instead, what is being said is that these explanations lack sufficient evidence to suggest that they are possible [1]. If a supernatural/unnatural explanation is inconsistent with our understanding of the universe (and is therefore inconsistent with respect to our model of reality) [2], and perhaps even contradicts something else established as true (a fact), we might reasonably conclude that it is more likely to be impossible than possible. How one would demonstrate impossibility with evidence is beyond my capacity to reason, and I suspect it is beyond your capacity too as I do not believe you possess mental powers that I do not (paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens).

1. Two problems with that sentence. a) the evidence would be the fact that a natural cause was not a factor and the actual presence of the effect and b) it is incorrect to say "lack sufficient evidence to suggest that they are possible". All you have warrant for is that they are not naturally possible. To just say 'not possible' is question begging. 
2. You have defined 'reality' to be only the natural world. If the supernatural exists, it is part of reality. It is question begging to define reality without the supernatural and then say it's impossible because it is not part of reality. The rest of your point hinges on this so fails because it is circular. 

 
If a supernatural/unnatural explanation is true, however, then it is something that can therefore be discovered and verified. What this means is that supernatural/unnatural explanations are not automatically disqualified from being included in our model of reality (the universe). A supernatural/unnatural explanation could therefore, theoretically, be validated and confirmed. [3] In doing so, the supernatural/unnatural explanation would become a natural explanation. [4] It would now be consistent with “the world in its entirety.”
The reason I point this out is because science (as a collective body of knowledge populated by scientists) does not accept supernatural/unnatural explanations for phenomena we observe in our universe, but not because of some sort of inherent bias against supernature. It is because defining them as supernatural/unnatural, means pointing out that they have not been verified as possible explanations. [5] Therefore, as we understand them and as we understand our universe, the supernatural/unnatural explanations are indistinguishable from our imagination. [6] If sufficient evidence can be presented that logically concludes they are possible, then they can become accepted explanations of our universe (aka, natural explanations).[7]

3. That is simply not true. A supernatural explanation can only be detected by the effect it leaves on the natural world. So, it is the effect that you would be examining and inferring a supernatural cause. 
4. That is not even close. Inferring a supernatural explanation will never ever get you to redefining it as a natural explanation. 
5. Again, to be accurate, science tells us there are no naturalistic explanations. It cannot tell us there are no other explanations. 
6. You are getting lost with the "indistinguishable from our imagination" stuff. None of your arguments gets you anywhere near that. 
7. No again. You are just redefining terms. Supernatural will never be part of any natural explanation. They are, by definition, opposites. 

 
Let’s pick a rather obvious and silly example to start off with so as to ensure we are on the same page. I can imagine myself possessing telepathic abilities. I can picture in my mind that I am able to move objects and I can even speculate as to how I may be able to do so. Perhaps I am able to somehow spontaneously convert some of the ATP in my body into a form energy that is capable of manipulating the air around me, thus allowing me to use air pressure to move objects around. Does that sound at least hypothetically possible? No, because our understanding of our physiology and metabolism doesn’t include a way for us to consciously control how we use the ATP in our body, nor do we possess a known mechanism for using said energy to manipulate the air pressure around us (at least not without using technology). But we only answer “no” in this case because we don’t yet have any evidence it is true. If I can provide evidence that I can indeed move objects using my mind (without the assistance of technology or some other such trick), then I can amend our previous answer to at least a “maybe.” In order to conclude that my initial hypothesis is indeed correct, I would need to look for additional evidence linking my telepathy to the conversion of ATP into the energy being used for my telepathic abilities.
 
So, can I indeed provide the evidence of telepathy that would first be needed to draw any meaningful conclusions about how telepathy works? Sadly, the answer is no. Like you, I am not able to move objects with my mind. Telepathy remains a supernatural belief because it remains a belief for which there is insufficient evidence to render it possible.

Actually, your example of telepathy is not supernatural. To be supernatural, you would have to have a cause from outside our universe.

---

Let us see your evidence that the supernatural is not natural so we know that you are not talking bull. 

So you're asking someone for evidence that something that by definition does not exist is not something else that does exist.

You need to learn what falsifiable means.

---

It is an applied science. It uses what we have discovered about the natural (physical) world, manipulating electricity, and applies it to achieve a goal or solve a problem. Computer science also uses math and logic (themselves not science) to produce results. 

All sciences are applied sciences.

Science, whether natural or unnatural, isn't constricted to observation and recording, all sciences get applied and used. Medical science wouldn't be any use if all it did was explain why we were sick and not develop medication for example.

This is so typical of the theist mindset. They see science as yet another religion but don't understand that it is more than a set of teachings precisely because it gets used and therefore tested, validated and improved. They typically don't understand that the modern world wouldn't actually exist if things that they claim were correct.

Nope. It's really quite easy to look up these terms. You should try it. 

Applied science is a discipline of science that applies existing scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications, like technology or inventions.

Within natural science, disciplines that are basic science, also called pure science, develop information to predict and perhaps explain—thus somehow understand—phenomena in the natural world. Applied science applies science to real world practice. This includes a broad range of applied science related fields from Engineering, Business, Medicine to Early Childhood Education. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science

Your last paragraph is utter nonsense and a product of your imagination. You clearly do not even understand basic terms all throughout this thread.