One simple question

[tavarish]

How does one apply scientific methods to a being that is supernatural (outside of the natural realm).

You wouldn't.

Science can only be applied to the things it can test and a supernatural being does not fall into that category.

Exactly.

You test the natural with science that was developed within the natural and the supernatural by faith.

Faith isn't a method to test claims. Faith is necessary only when you have an utter lack of empirical evidence for something. You have yet to demonstrate why having faith in something is at all reasonable or reflects something that is true or demonstrable in any context.

This is why atheist and theist disagree at a basic level, the basic level for most atheist is science and the natural world and for theist it is faith in a supernatural being.

And you haven't answered the question. How do you determine what is real and what is not?

For me of course the God of the Bible is whom I place my faith in. We are on opposite sides of a wall and that is where our trust will stay unless someone or thing destroys that trust, this wall most likely will not be breached by words alone but can be by anothers actions. So life goes on and we trust in what we know is right for ourselves.

Let's make this transparent. Truth isn't something that you wish for, nor is it subjective. Truth is truth. The methodology of discovering and demonstrating that truth is the question. I don't care what you place faith in, I care why you believe this faith is at all reasonable or demonstrates your claims as truth.

---

That's circular reasoning because you really don't know for sure what reality is. It can only be consistent with your perception of reality. Needless to say that the same goes for me.

Yes, which is why I wrote "I compare it to my perception, or model of reality in such a way that bias is all but extinguished, and at the very least - irrelevant."

I missed that self doubt in your question in the OP. If there was self-doubt shouldn't it have been stated thus: "How does one determine what is real and what is not real?"

I didn't phrase it as such because it's a question pertaining to people of a certain mindset, not a general question for all. Self examination plays a part in my methodology, but it may not play a part in others'.

If by this method you mean the scientific method, your method can only assess things up to a certain point, yes. So we agree it can never reach 100% accuracy. And we might agree that your and mine method not only fails at absolutely and definitely ruling out anything, it also fails at absolutely and definitely ruling in anything.

And why would something need to be 100 percent accurate in order to be valid? Would not the consistency of such a methodology play a part in comparison to others' reasoning methods or lack thereof?

I don't deal in absolutes, nor do I know of anyone or anything that operates within such measures. Why would I then assume that my methodologies must abide by some impossible standard? Yes, I could be wrong in every aspect, but that's the beauty of the method. It allows for self examination.

Who says that disembodiment is part of it. Maybe our bodies are just an illusion and always have been.

In that case any methodology that uses empirical observations would be meaningless. Why exactly would that be preferential or beneficial to my understanding? Also, if I am the product of an illusion, how would I demonstrate this? We rely on certain assumptions for survival and growth stemming from our perceptions of reality. We wouldn't have gotten very far as a species if we wholeheartedly believed that we are the product of a dream and everything we do is either inconsequential or illusory.

You're right that the mind in a jar as of yet is not within reach of measurement. And indeed that is a serious problem with it just as with the god concept. But those considerations are not about ultimate truth, it is nothing but a practical consideration.

And why would ultimate truth be necessary in the limited scope of human perception? How would that even be possible?

Even if we are in some Matrix, the reality that we can perceive is all we can make statements about, untill shown otherwise.

I don't see issue in this. The fact that we can perceive doesn't give us any insight on how to perceive it. My question was directed at those with a supernatural belief to justify their ideology in a way that was reasonably consistent with their perceptions of reality. It's asking them, in any context, to share why they think a certain concept/deity/being/anything is real or not.

This is a relative practical principle. Ultimate truth is not involved here.

Nor should it be in a conversation such as this. When you go for existential concepts such as ultimate truth and absolute knowledge, you're drawing a line directly between "vague" and "impossible", then walking it. It's quite futile.

There is no ultimate answer for both atheists and theists. In the end there only is a normative distinction in accepting or rejecting the scientific method.

Is there an ultimate answer for anything at all? Did I ask for absolute certainty?