Wilgrea7:


I studied engineering. But I've recently found myself really interested in cosmology and other things related to the universe.

In terms of belief, I'm really not sure where to classify myself. I don't subscribe to any religion at the moment.

Since you are conversant with engineering, need to ask what you know about “Particulate physics” in relation to unifying all theories and discovery ‘Higgs boson’. In short scientific attempt to discover God.

TAYO124:


Since you are conversant with engineering, need to ask what you know about “Particulate physics” in relation to unifying all theories and discovery ‘Higgs boson’. In short scientific attempt to discover God.

While I feel flattered, I think it's important to note that engineering, and cosmology, or theoretical physics are completely different fields.

But like I said earlier, I've been interested in cosmology as of late (although I'm not studying it as a course), so I know a few things.

Particle physics, as the name suggests, is the study of the elementary particles that make up our reality, and how they work and interact.

I know of the discovery of the higgs boson. But that's about all i know about it.

There's this thing called quantum mechanics, which tries to explain reality via the interactions of the elementary particles on the subatomic scale. There's also general relativity, which tries to explain reality based on the macro scale, like movement and activities of stars, planets, galaxies, black holes and so on.

While they both try to explain the world on both the micro and macro scale respectively, their calculations don't exactly match up with one another. We're currently looking for a theory of everything that merges the explanations we get from both quantum mechanics and general relativity into one big theory that actually makes sense and doesn't lead to contradictions.

Wilgrea7:


While I feel flattered, I think it's important to note that engineering, and cosmology, or theoretical physics are completely different fields.

But like I said earlier, I've been interested in cosmology as of late (although I'm not studying it as a course), so I know a few things.

Particle physics, as the name suggests, is the study of the elementary particles that make up our reality, and how they work and interact.

I know of the discovery of the higgs boson. But that's about all i know about it.

There's this thing called quantum mechanics, which tries to explain reality via the interactions of the elementary particles on the subatomic scale. There's also general relativity, which tries to explain reality based on the macro scale, like movement and activities of stars, planets, galaxies, black holes and so on.

While they both try to explain the world on both the micro and macro scale respectively, their calculations don't exactly match up with one another. We're currently looking for a theory of everything that merges the explanations we get from both quantum mechanics and general relativity into one big theory that actually makes sense and doesn't lead to contradictions.

Now that is an aspect of the physical world
Which is very challenging to study. How easy do you think it will be to study a matter we mostly agree is outside our realm of existence.
We encounter enormous challenge when we want to study issues which our Mortality
Is like a speck to,( can mortality understand immortality?)
Can life fully understand the reality of death?
Can a book which is written understand its writer/author?
Can a unicellular organism understand the physiology and complexities of multicellular organisms?
Now that is the scale of the challenge, are you SURE you still want to continue on an endless quest WILGREA7?

TAYO124:


Now that is an aspect of the physical world
Which is very challenging to study. How easy do you think it will be to study a matter we mostly agree is outside our realm of existence.

Easy? I doubt it. Understanding the nature of reality is a very difficult thing. But we still owe it to ourselves to try. After all, that's how we got to where we are today.

Also, I wouldn't exactly refer to these things as "outside our realm of existence".

We encounter enormous challenge when we want to study issues which our Mortality
Is like a speck to,( can mortality understand immortality?)
Can life fully understand the reality of death?
Can a book which is written understand its writer/author?
Now that is the scale of the challenge, are you SURE you still want to continue on an endless quest WILGREA7?

I think we pretty much understand death. What happens afterwards tho, we're still not sure yet. Maybe one day. There's no way to know until we try.

A book can't understand its author simply because a book is not sentient or conscious. We are.

In terms of an endless challenge as you claimed, we don't know for sure if it is an endless one. It could be, but then it could also not be. What we do know, is that there are things we don't know. And as long as there is a step forward in knowledge, we will continue to take that step.

Wilgrea7:

No one claims science answers everything. We have a lot of questions. But if someone wishes to answer them, then there has to be reason and evidence behind the answer.

I'm not rebellious against your god. I'm simply asking questions about the nature of the world.

Stop deceiving yourself!

The position of science is discoveries but when it comes to human relations science can't do a single thing it's the study of the supernaturals that can yield positive results.

WHY?

Because they are higher intelligent beings than humans!

MaxInDHouse:


Stop deceiving yourself!

The position of science is discoveries but when it comes to human relations science can't do a single thing it's the study of the supernaturals that can yield positive results.

WHY?

Because they are higher intelligent beings than humans!

At this point, i sincerely don't know if you read my posts before you actually respond.

I literally just said science doesn't claim to answer everything.. and yet.. you're still saying it can't do a single thing when it comes to human relations... Like i ever said it can.

Secondly... Your analogy of supernatural or higher intelligent beings doesn't hold up.

It seems like I'm going round in circles when it comes to this topic.

You're assuming several things.

1. That supernatural beings exist... This thread literally explains why the term "supernatural" is a bad argument

2. That if beings of higher intelligence actually exist, that they'll want to interact with humans, or want to be interacted with

3. That merely having a higher intelligence gives you an absolute moral right over less intelligent beings.
An adult human is without a doubt.. more intelligent than a 2 year old. Does that mean everything an adult says is good, is actually good? If so, then why are certain people regarded as bad parents?

If an adult tells a child that it's okay to steal and kill innocent people.. does it make it right?
If higher intelligent beings exist, is it compulsory for them to agree with one another?.. and if they don't agree, then which one do you draw your moral compass from, and why?.. and what makes you think that correct one is the correct one?

If a God, as you like to believe says it's ok to kill millions of innocent people for fun, would that make it okay?

Wilgrea7:

1. That supernatural beings exist... This thread literally explains why the term "supernatural" is a bad argument

They have their own interest so if you don't study them through the right channel you can never know a single thing about them. It's like approaching science yet insisting on not using the right logical approach. Do you think you can prove anything to such a person when he will not follow up with your research?
The answer is NO!
You can only prove your scientific discoveries before those who are ready to listen to you not those who blocked their hearts towards what you have to say or present.
For your information there still exist some humans on this planet who totally ignore civilization, they're still living in the stone age and no matter what you bring to their community they just greet you and turn away because they believe you're coming to enslave them once they subscribe to your discovery!

2. That if beings of higher intelligence actually exist, that they'll want to interact with humans, or want to be interacted with

YES! They're interacting with humans but first they study you before doing so, if you're not their type they will never show themselves to you. Their real interest is to support whoever wants to RULE over others, they're ready to give you the support you need! Genesis 3:4-5
But the true God (Almighty) doesn't support it that's why the lesser spirits gets more adherents than the true God because most humans love to dominate their fellowman! Ecclesiastes 4:1; 8:9

3. That merely having a higher intelligence gives you an absolute moral right over less intelligent beings.

Sure it does because it's due to scientific discoveries that most of them are trying to tell you what you should or not believe!
You can't tell me you just woke up one morning and start thinking like this, it's the effect of some scientists and their discoveries that's shaping your present thinking!

Wilgrea7:


Jesus H. B. Christ! You're still going on about this universe thing.

You brought it in and you promised not to bring it in.

Wilgrea7:

Someone can rule over something without necessarily creating it. A landlord is a good example
Someone can create something without necessarily ruling over it...

Change of Post! Creators do have a right to appoint another person to manage (rule) their creations on their behalf, And it is still them ruling even if someone else is physically doing it on their behalf.

So you have not said any valid thing.

Wilgrea7:

Sir... Sir... I'm not sure there's a single logical person on earth that believes being a landlord equates to being the builder of the house.

Everyone knows that whether you build your house with your own hands or you commission other persons to build it, "You are the builder of the house"

See!
https://www.nairaland.com/2173772/lessons-learnt-while-building-house#31207632

This one has pictures of the people who worked for him.

https://www.nairaland.com/5357928/dj-kaywise-becomes-landlord-shows#81229415

https://www.nairaland.com/5426828/photos-ogus-baba-house-now#82393062

But obviously you are insane for not knowing this and I know you are not insane, so this is you showing the depths of stupidity you would descend into, just to keep avoiding the obvious.

You are obviously not serious and not a reasonable person at all.

Dtruthspeaker:

Change of Post! Creators do have a right to appoint another person to manage (rule) their creations on their behalf, And it is still them ruling even if someone else is physically doing it on their behalf.

So you have not said any valid thing.

I never said a creator can't appoint someone to rule over their creation. That scenario works only if the person creating is the owner.

If I employ someone to build me a house. Emphasis on employ... Wouldn't you say i am the owner or ruler of the house?

The fact that the builders.. bricklayers.. welders etc brought the house into fruition.. does that mean they are the rulers of the house?

I'm not disputing that someone can be the creator, and ruler of something at the same time, or appoint someone to rule on their behalf.. I'm simply saying the act of creating something doesn't always entitle you to ownership or rulership.

The bricklayers you employed to build your house are an example.
The people who built and assembled the wristwatch you're wearing are an example.. they neither own the wristwatch nor the company.. they work for the company.. they don't rule it

Everyone knows that whether you build your house with your own hands or you commission other persons to build it, "You are the builder of the house"

No. Everyone agrees that you are the OWNER of the house. No sincere person says that just because someone owns something, that they must have been physically involved in the creation of that thing. It's a possibility of course... But not a necessity

This one has pictures of the people who worked for him.

Can the people who worked for him claim ownership of the house? Can they enter the house and begin to make rules on how affairs should be conducted in the house?

But obviously you are insane for not knowing this and I know you are not insane, so this is you showing the depths of stupidity you would descend into, just to keep avoiding the obvious.

You are obviously not serious and not a reasonable person at all.

I appreciate the insults... But they do absolutely nothing to strengthen the points of your argument

MaxInDHouse:

They have their own interest so if you don't study them through the right channel you can never know a single thing about them.

And what, in this situation, would be the right channel to use when approaching the possible existence of beings you term “supernatural"?

It's like approaching science yet insisting on not using the right logical approach. Do you think you can prove anything to such a person when he will not follow up with your research?
The answer is NO!

That's the point of our entire discussion.. I've been asking for this so called research... This so called proof that can show the existence of these beings you claim. That's the point of everything I've been saying since the beginning of this discussion.

You can only prove your scientific discoveries before those who are ready to listen to you not those who blocked their hearts towards what you have to say or present.

How exactly does one block their hearts to proof? Did you ever provide any evidence for your claims about these supernatural beings which i rejected?... All you've provided is word of mouth, and absolutely no way to verify those claims. Word of mouth is not proof. Proof is what verifies the “word of mouth".. not the other way around.

For your information there still exist some humans on this planet who totally ignore civilization, they're still living in the stone age and no matter what you bring to their community they just greet you and turn away because they believe you're coming to enslave them once they subscribe to your discovery!

That's not a healthy position to hold.

YES! They're interacting with humans but first they study you before doing so, if you're not their type they will never show themselves to you.

Lol... So it's like tinder... But for supernatural beings.

Their real interest is to support whoever wants to RULE over others, they're ready to give you the support you need! Genesis 3:4-5
But the true God (Almighty) doesn't support it that's why the lesser spirits gets more adherents than the true God because most humans love to dominate their fellowman! Ecclesiastes 4:1; 8:9

There are so many baseless claims here it's hard to unpack. I'm curious to know how exactly you found out their real interest. Let's assume they revealed themselves to you.. Which supernatural being revealed itself to you.. and when did it tell you all these things.. and what makes a supernatural being any more believable than a natural one?

Sure it does because it's due to scientific discoveries that most of them are trying to tell you what you should or not believe!
You can't tell me you just woke up one morning and start thinking like this, it's the effect of some scientists and their discoveries that's shaping your present thinking!

I'll be honest.. you completely lost me here. In what way does scientific discovery relate to the morality of coexistence? You're the one who literally said science can't tell you how to live together and coexist.. now you're saying a higher intelligent being would have science to tell me what and what not to believe?.. I'm not even trying to troll.. I'm sincerely lost

Wilgrea7:

I never said a creator can't appoint someone to rule over their creation. That scenario works only if the person creating is the owner.

If I employ someone to build me a house. Emphasis on employ... Wouldn't you say i am the owner or ruler of the house?

The fact that the builders.. bricklayers.. welders etc brought the house into fruition.. does that mean they are the rulers of the house?

I'm not disputing that someone can be the creator, and ruler of something at the same time, or appoint someone to rule on their behalf..

See how you are contradicting yourself

Wilgrea7:

Sir... Sir... I'm not sure there's a single logical person on earth that believes being a landlord equates to being the builder of the house.

Wilgrea7:

I'm not disputing that someone can be the creator, and ruler of something at the same time, or appoint someone to rule on their behalf..

See how you are contradicting yourself!

Wilgrea7:

Sir... Sir... I'm not sure there's a single logical person on earth that believes being a landlord equates to being the builder of the house.

Dtruthspeaker:


See how you are contradicting yourself

I really don't see the contradiction there. I said no one believes simply being a landlord equates to being a builder. Being the landlord and being the builder are not mutually exclusive things... But they are also not equal.

Let me put it in simple mathematical terms

2 /= 3
3 /= 2
But 2 can be added to 3

2 represents owning a house
3 reoresents physically building the house

Owning the house is not the same as building it
Building a house is not the same as owning it

But you can build and own a house at the same time.

They are different and completely distinct roles... But they can be combined.

I never imagined I'd have to type algebra on a religious thread lol

Wilgrea7:


I really don't see the contradiction there...

You don't see because you don't want to.

And I am satisfied that in spite of your twistings, you have have still confessed The Truths of what I first Said

1. "I'm not disputing that someone can be the creator, and ruler of something at the same time, or appoint someone to rule on their behalf.. "

Meaning you admit that a person can be both a creator and a ruler, where you first did not admit so. Which means a landlord is equal to the builder of a house which you previously denied.

2 you admit a creator can appoint another person to rule over his creation
"i never said a creator can't appoint someone to rule over their creation. " Which you previously denied.

And in the end you have given the Truth full answers to the questions I put to you, which because you did not want to acknowledge the Truth, you avoided them by asking even stupid questions and even ridiculously entering into settled things that everyone knows to make stupid issues out of them, just so that you do not have to say The Truth you and I and everyone else,knows.

But, see, you still confessed them without escape.

So, it is finished and my case proven.

Wilgrea7:

And what, in this situation, would be the right channel to use when approaching the possible existence of beings you term “supernatural"?
That's the point of our entire discussion.. I've been asking for this so called research... This so called proof that can show the existence of these beings you claim. That's the point of everything I've been saying since the beginning of this discussion. How exactly does one block their hearts to proof? Did you ever provide any evidence for your claims about these supernatural beings which i rejected?... All you've provided is word of mouth, and absolutely no way to verify those claims. Word of mouth is not proof. Proof is what verifies the “word of mouth".. not the other way around.

The word "EVIDENCE" doesn't always relate to what you must see but most times effects or aftermath of events.
If we're to go by your logic then there's no way to prove a rapist guilty when you never find him raping your daughter even when you find your 8 year old daughter has been devastated with bloodstains all over her private part you will agree it's just a lie since you never saw him did it, shey?

Ọmọ come of it joh!
Thousands of events would be rendered as lies if we're to go by your logic.
So if you want the evidence of supernaturals it's by LISTENING TO WHAT THOSE WHO KNOWS says and try to consider the aftereffects not insisting on seeing the supernaturals doing it that's tantamount to saying you want to see the rapist raping your daughter first!

That's not a healthy position to hold.
Lol... So it's like tinder... But for supernatural beings.
There are so many baseless claims here it's hard to unpack. I'm curious to know how exactly you found out their real interest. Let's assume they revealed themselves to you.. Which supernatural being revealed itself to you.. and when did it tell you all these things.. and what makes a supernatural being any more believable than a natural one?

The God of Israel has revealed lots of secrets in the Bible for instance:
How life began.
How suffering began.
How mankind began ruling over themselves.
How immorality began.
What led to stealing.
Where magic comes from.
Which nation was first to dominate the world.
And which nation will be the last never to be conquered until He (God) comes to put a stop to mankind's domination permanently.

Even though we can't see the supernatural who inspired the writers of these things nobody not even you and all your professors in atheism can deny the AFTEREFFECTS of what this God says.
So we have all the evidences but you have to humbly follow up with the right approach to prove it not dictating how we should go about it because that will not change what we know!

I'll be honest.. you completely lost me here. In what way does scientific discovery relate to the morality of coexistence? You're the one who literally said science can't tell you how to live together and coexist.. now you're saying a higher intelligent being would have science to tell me what and what not to believe?.. I'm not even trying to troll.. I'm sincerely lost

This is why you need to humble yourself and learn not just blurring your senses because of scientific discoveries.
I've told you that science is for everyone whether believers in God or not all of us work with science but insisting on debunking or questioning God while counting on science will make us really stupid!

Let me enlighten on how humans like you are dictating to you what you must believe or not believe.

The word BELIEVE connotes TRUST so before you can put your complete trust in what your fellowman says he must have conquered your subconscious mind, in order to do this they will convince you to reason with what God said so that all of you may live together as peacelovers under God's laws. This is the only right way to cohabit as humans.

But those that trust in science will FORCE you to remain subjected to them in a geographical location. After developing destructive weapons to intimidate you, they will demand that where you live is their domain so you're now one of their subjects. So it's either you BELIEVE (TRUST) them to continue living in that place or forfeit your habitation under threat and look for another place.
Well there's no place under this heavens now that some humans like you haven't dominate others making them subjects so you must BELIEVE (TRUST) when it comes to the time you're to go out and come in (laws restricting times of movement), where to thread and where not to thread (laws stating boundaries), what must happen to you under their domain (constitution)
All these things they will do because they have what it takes to intimidate you WEAPONS, and how did they get these weapons? Through science!
Do you now see why Science is like a rival to God?

Dtruthspeaker:


You don't see because you don't want to.

And I am satisfied that in spite of your twistings, you have have still confessed The Truths of what I first Said

1. "I'm not disputing that someone can be the creator, and ruler of something at the same time, or appoint someone to rule on their behalf.. "

Meaning you admit that a person can be both a creator and a ruler, where you first did not admit so. Which means a landlord is equal to the builder of a house which you previously denied.

I literally gave you a mathematical example to explain what I meant. And you're still saying... you know what? I concede.

2 you admit a creator can appoint another person to rule over his creation
"i never said a creator can't appoint someone to rule over their creation. " Which you previously denied.

And in the end you have given the Truth full answers to the questions I put to you, which because you did not want to acknowledge the Truth, you avoided them by asking even stupid questions and even ridiculously entering into settled things that everyone knows to make stupid issues out of them, just so that you do not have to say The Truth you and I and everyone else,knows.

But, see, you still confessed them without escape.

So, it is finished and my case proven.

Yes sir. Congratulations. You caught me. Thank you

MaxInDHouse:

The word "EVIDENCE" doesn't always relate to what you must see but most times effects or aftermath of events.
If we're to go by your logic then there's no way to prove a rapist guilty when you never find him raping your daughter even when you find your 8 year old daughter has been devastated with bloodstains all over her private part you will agree it's just a lie since you never saw him did it, shey?

Of all the examples you could've possibly given in this world. It had to be THIS one?? Jesus man.

Ọmọ come of it joh!
Thousands of events would be rendered as lies if we're to go by your logic.

I don't exactly have a problem with that.

So if you want the evidence of supernaturals it's by LISTENING TO WHAT THOSE WHO KNOWS says and try to consider the aftereffects not insisting on seeing the supernaturals doing it that's tantamount to saying you want to see the rapist raping your daughter first!

There's a reason we demand for some level of evidence. Because we know, and we've seen, that it is possible for someone to lie, or fabricate a story. If someone were telling you about their spiritual encounter, how would you know they were telling the truth or not?

The r*pe thing you cited is an awful thing to happen to anyone. But you are aware that people fabricate stories like that too right? You don't even need to look far. The Johnny Depp and Amber heard story is a very good example. And there are lots more. Plus, in the instance you gave, there is clearly physical evidence. The blood, as well as the signs of physical abuse will be present.

In the case of a spiritual story... what sort of physical evidence would someone offer? If there is no sort of physical evidence to back up the story, then how would you differentiate the story from an outright lie?

The God of Israel has revealed lots of secrets in the Bible for instance:
How life began.
How suffering began.
How mankind began ruling over themselves.
How immorality began.
What led to stealing.
Where magic comes from.
Which nation was first to dominate the world.
And which nation will be the last never to be conquered until He (God) comes to put a stop to mankind's domination permanently.

I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over again. You're still pointing back to stories that have not, as far as I've seen, been verified on any grounds.

Even though we can't see the supernatural who inspired the writers of these things nobody not even you and all your professors in atheism can deny the AFTEREFFECTS of what this God says.

Firstly, Not an atheist. Secondly, what aftereffects exactly? I'm curious.

So we have all the evidences but you have to humbly follow up with the right approach to prove it not dictating how we should go about it because that will not change what we know!

I asked you what the right approach would be in your opinion. You said it would be talking to people who claimed to have an encounter. I'm talking to you right now, and rather, you're pointing to a story written in a book about an encounter someone else had thousands of years ago. And not just that, I showed you how it would be difficult to just accept stories based on hearsay, because you can't possibly know who is lying or who is telling the truth.

This is why you need to humble yourself and learn not just blurring your senses because of scientific discoveries.
I've told you that science is for everyone whether believers in God or not all of us work with science but insisting on debunking or questioning God while counting on science will make us really stupid!

No one is trying to debunk God. We're simply asking questions and analyzing the answers. And quite frankly, we've not gotten any solid, or evidence-backed answers.

Let me enlighten on how humans like you are dictating to you what you must believe or not believe.

The word BELIEVE connotes TRUST so before you can put your complete trust in what your fellowman says he must have conquered your subconscious mind, in order to do this they will convince you to reason with what God said so that all of you may live together as peacelovers under God's laws. This is the only right way to cohabit as humans.

I'm not believing in anything. I'm only asking questions based on the beliefs you offered to me. And you're not giving any credible answers. How do you know what God said? How do you know it was God? How do you know God, if He/She/It exists, would want to speak to anyone in the first place. You keep pointing to a book that "says so". You've failed to offer me any credible evidence outside your presupposed belief, which you've also offered no evidence for. And you accuse me of trusting blindly?? The irony.

But those that trust in science will FORCE you to remain subjected to them in a geographical location.

For the 1000th time. Science is not a religion. You don't trust in it any more than you trust in gravity. Science just seeks to explain things objectively, and with proof.

After developing destructive weapons to intimidate you, they will demand that where you live is their domain so you're now one of their subjects. So it's either you BELIEVE (TRUST) them to continue living in that place or forfeit your habitation under threat and look for another place.

This is the second time you're saying this. Are destructive weapons the only things science created? You live in a place where you can easily buy pure water, live in a house that isn't made of mud and bamboo, probably drive a car, use a phone, watch television, and you're here acting like science is a bad thing. Man.. you marvel me.

Well there's no place under this heavens now that some humans like you haven't dominate others making them subjects so you must BELIEVE (TRUST) when it comes to the time you're to go out and come in (laws restricting times of movement), where to thread and where not to thread (laws stating boundaries), what must happen to you under their domain (constitution)
All these things they will do because they have what it takes to intimidate you WEAPONS, and how did they get these weapons? Through science!
Do you now see why Science is like a rival to God?

Science is not a rival to God. The fact that you said this only shows how little you think of your god. Science seeks to learn about, and explain the world, as use that knowledge to its advantage. To think that the scientific method is like a rival to a god is honestly an insult to said god. If your god feels intimidated by science, that's his problem.

Mr elated177

My apologies for not mentioning you here earlier. This thread was created to clearly explain my position on things termed "supernatural", in response to the questions I was asked.

As i've told you earlier, the supernatural forces controls the world so there's nothing you can say or do to stop their influence on people around you!

Dtruthspeaker:


Thank you!

Don't mention

By ”supernatural” experiences WHAT do you mean?

Now in science in the realm of discovered laws and principles, (e.g law of gravity) there is always an exception to the rule. What you regard as supernatural experiences may well be exception to the rule of the scientific phenomenon you know. A hundred years and less of it in human years is minuscule and GROSSLY insufficient to study anything to a suitable point of conclusion. Time itself is an enemy
Of research.

WILGREA7 over to you!!!

TAYO124:
By ”supernatural” experiences WHAT do you mean?

Experiences we can't quite understand, or explain based on our current knowledge of reality

Now in science in the realm of discovered laws and principles, (e.g law of gravity) there is always an exception to the rule.

I'm afraid i have to disagree with the objection to the rule part. The laws of physics for example, are based on our current understanding of the reality we can observe.

But since we don't yet understand all of reality, we cannot say for sure that anything that happens which we don't yet understand, is an exception to the rule.

For us to say something is an exception to the rule, we need to first fully understand the rule. By rule in this situation, i mean reality.

What you regard as supernatural experiences may well be exception to the rule of the scientific phenomenon you know. A hundred years and less of it in human years is minuscule and GROSSLY insufficient to study anything to a suitable point of conclusion. Time itself is an enemy
Of research.

WILGREA7 over to you!!!

I understand where you're coming from. But if something defies scientific explanation, it's not that that thing is necessarily supernatural. It's just that our scientific understanding has not grown to the point where we can say for sure what is natural and what is not.