In this day and age, even the most aggravating decent discussion is so much more enjoyable then the tripe and trolls on most of the internet. I'm all for memes and the like but sometimes it's nice to have a chat. I also think the whole purpose of a site like this is to piss yourself off a little. How do you know you're right until you have to convince somebody else and if you can't then you might not be wrong but you shouldn't make the point.

Thank you for commenting as well. I think the reason I used such a vague terms is because i think the criticism stands for all supernatural belief. If the only tools we have for understanding our surrounding environment (anything outside the brain) are physical, how would you explain your ability to detect supernatural phenomena if you believed in it. Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer in my original post.

@Thetruepianoman no reason to apologize. Your question sparked conversation that travelled over to another conversation I was/am having. A beautiful thing wouldn’t you agree? Cheers?

I have never experienced a theist that has a total suspension of judgement, they always just encompass dellusion within their system of logic, usually by using coincidences and drawing false conclusions to build a foundation of 'truths' that allows them to justify any actions that may give then negative stimuli to consider.

Are you a theist?

@Thetruepianoman no, that is also why im asking about what you mean by supernatural observation.

@Julien974 In a way, that's what I'm asking them

@Thetruepianoman oh ok

There is as mich evidence for God as there is against in that there is no evidence at all but that depends on how you define your God. You make the mistake of confusing belief with knowledge. Science makes no garuntees, all of it's claims begin with to the best of our knowledge.
Regardless, my original point is that the human being garuntee the existence of things/forces in the universe using sense data ( data that's observed by organs and transmitted to the brain). We have no choice, that's how we understand our environment, otherwise we'd just be a brain in a head. If that's the case and we need observable evidence to believe some thing, then how can you make the claim to have observed something beyond your means of observation.
It's like claiming to see sound with a telescope, by definition the stimuli is beyond the capabilities of the tool

@Thetruepianoman, huh? Where did I say anything about KNOWING or KNOWLEDGE? I've reread what I wrote, and nothing in there even implies KNOWING. How can I be confusing knowing and believing if I'm not even addressing knowing?

What you're speaking to in the second paragraph sounds more like science, but you should know other means of experiencing have been suggested, and I can't categorically dismiss the experience of others. One example is the Holy Spirit. Some people believe in the Holy Spirit, and that would not be detectable from the 5 senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch. It would be something else. I can't say the Holy Spirit doesn't exist. Can you?

You denying something you don't have isn't proof it doesn't exist. I can't see you or where you are. Maybe you're sitting in a room with a computer. It has no impact on the truth just because I can't see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it. There's more to the world, I think, than your limited acceptance of YOUR senses.

@chuckpo You refer to belief in science. Science doesn't believe anything, it works within the parameters of knowledge, that which is quantified by evidence.

If you are to say such a thing as the holy spirit exists and is by your concession undetectable by humans, how have you detected it? I will never say I know these things don't exist, that claim requires evidence too. However, I will add it to every and any other claim you could possibly make up. Without valuing evidence there is nothing to distinguish between reality and nonsense.

You say there is more to this world then I can detect with my senses and you're right, through science we can detect phenomena our senses aren't able to detect. However you say this as though you DO posses the tools to detect something that is by your definition, beyond physical. All of your tools for observing anything outside of your brain are all physical devices so to speak, hence the original post

@Thetruepianoman, what's the relationship between my belief and science believing something? It doesn't work within a 'parameter of knowledge'. That's just not right. Science guesses all of the time. The field of statistics was designed to get some sense of how wrong our guesses might be. I just don't get your point at all.

First, I didn't say anything about my knowledge of the Holy Spirit. I've said I'm a God-leaning agnostic. I don't know. However, there are people who believe very much in the 'guidance' of the Holy Spirit. My position is I don't know--the only sensible and defensible position of science. You valuing evidence or not has no bearing on whether such things exist. That's kind of the point. I believe there is an objective reality that we have only a very limited view of. It's not necessary that we distinguish between reality and nonsense when not knowing is an authentic, sensible position to take. Sheesh, over time a lot of our nonsense has exactly come to pass.

I say, there COULD BE more to this world than we can detect. I don't know. Science has uncovered a little, technology, etc. But, the vast amount of what is knowable is most likely unknown. We think we're there, but we're probably barely into the process of learning about reality. Time will tell. We'll have to agree to disagree on what we can derive or merely begin to speculate on. I believe there is more to mankind than our 5 senses can detect. I think that makes the most sense. In fact, there are probably more 'senses' than 5. Again, time will tell.