Is It Correct to Say There is "No" Evidence For the Supernatural Part 1

[Jim]

@dga471

Many people would say that if a controlled experiment shows up evidence (direct or indirect - those terms are not rigorously defined either) for the supernatural, then the “supernatural” becomes part of the natural. The evidence becomes regular scientific evidence. This goes back to the issue of defining “supernatural”. One could argue that quantum entanglement is as weird as anything proposed by supernaturalists, yet we regard it as a perfectly natural phenomenon.

I don’t think this can be the case. The most science can do for providing evidence for the supernatural is to provide evidence that shows that a natural cause of an event is highly implausible. That would be a good indication that it’s highly plausible that there is no natural cause. All that would do is indicate a metaphysical cause which would be outside of the scientific purview. I don’t see how it could ever be a part of science since by definition it would be outside of the realm of science. You can’t turn something supernatural into natural just because it’s highly implausible for it to have a natural cause.