[self_evident]

I asked if science could judge the validity, or existence, of anything related to the supernatural given that it does not deal in it.

I think you are asking something a little to obvious, and hence people think you are setting a rhetorical trap.

So to state the blatantly obvious. Science is the study of natural processes. It can't tell us a thing about the supernatural.

However, science has frequently demonstrated that things thought to be only explained by the supernatural can actually be explained by natural processes. So it sounds like a paradox, but science only demonstrates that the supernatural isn't necessary.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science is the study of natural processes.

Science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." It is free to restrict itself to only those things it perceives as "natural." It is also free to leave itself unfettered by such restriction.

[pby]

"It can't tell us a thing about the supernatural".

For example: Science can't tell us that the God of the Bible does not exist (but that hasn't stopped many of it's practioners from doing so).

For example: Science can't tell us that the claims of the Bible are not true (but that hasn't stopped many of it's practitioners from doing so).

Science is the study of observeable processes...natural as a qualifier to processes presupposes a philosophical/religious bias, which is unscientific.

Science in no way demonstrates that "the supernatural is not necessary"...but thanks for providing evidence for my hypothesis and for making my point for me.

You went way out of the bounds of "science" by making that claim!

[jwalsh07]

So to state the blatantly obvious. Science is the study of natural processes. It can't tell us a thing about the supernatural

Science is the search for knowledge. Or at least it used to be.