Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[SteveII]

No problem with your first sentence. Your last sentence is incorrect. You can ONLY observe the effect. You cannot observe the supernatural. Why is this concept so hard?

Observing the effect *is* observing the cause of that effect. My examples show how this happens.

No it is not. You were describing natural things we can't examine (yet?) but are still obeying natural laws and are squarely in the category of natural things.  In my example, observing the paralyzed man walking away (the effect) did not come close to observing God (the cause) which is squarely in the category of supernatural things. 

The difference is in the CAUSE. There are natural causes and supernatural causes. Two categories of causes. Both result in effects in the natural world--otherwise we would not be aware of them. How do we distinguish? There are some effects that cannot be caused by naturalistic causes. Need an example to discuss, here is one. 

Luke 5:17 On one of the days while Jesus was teaching, some proud religious law-keepers and teachers of the Law were sitting by Him. They had come from every town in the countries of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. The power of the Lord was there to heal them. 18 Some men took a man who was not able to move his body to Jesus. He was carried on a bed. They looked for a way to take the man into the house where Jesus was. 19 But they could not find a way to take him in because of so many people. They made a hole in the roof over where Jesus stood. Then they let the bed with the sick man on it down before Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The teachers of the Law and the proud religious law-keepers thought to themselves, “Who is this Man Who speaks as if He is God? Who can forgive sins but God only?” 22 Jesus knew what they were thinking. He said to them, “Why do you think this way in your hearts? 23 Which is easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or, ‘Get up and walk’?

24 “So that you may know the Son of Man has the right and the power on earth to forgive sins,” He said to the man who could not move his body, “I say to you, get up. Take your bed and go to your home.” 25 At once the sick man got up in front of them. He took his bed and went to his home thanking God. 26 All those who were there were surprised and gave thanks to God, saying, “We have seen very special things today.”

Let's just say you were there and this happened (and you knew the man to be paralyzed). Are you going to say we can only see the effect, so there is no difference between a naturalistic explanation and a supernatural explanation? Regardless, the scenario illustrates the concept of the difference between categories of causes and the visible effect--even if you don't believe it to be true.

If this story is valid, it would be a detection of the supernatural. And we could use such detections to build up a pattern of behavior of the supernatural, which is how science works.

All you would have are observations and inferences. Key ingredients to the process of science are predictions, testing and repeatability. There is no pattern to discern. Listen, if you want to call this cataloging of information 'science', knock yourself out. But you are not describing any version of the scientific method. 

yes, i am going to say there is no difference between the evidence for a supernatural and the evidence for a natural. They are BOTH based on observations of effects and the analysis of what could be the cause of those effects. Any patterns are discerned by hypothesis formation and testing.

In every instance, examining a natural effect will not give you information on the supernatural cause. You are attempting to cross the barrier or blur the lines between science and metaphysics. 

The only way science would NOT be applicable is if the effects are indistinguishable from randomness, in which case, the default is simple randomness.

Or...if the definition of supernatural says so:

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

Notice it did not say "beyond understanding". We can, using philosophy (including metaphysical concepts) infer quite a bit to better understand the supernatural. In fact, there is a whole category of philosophy dedicated to that: philosophy of religion.