At a low ange and at a distance, this would look like "walking on water". I am sure that Jesus had this technology.
I think we are now frantically agreeing with each other. It doesn't mean that scientists themselves have to reject the supernatural. Its just that they can only ever make scientific progress by assuming that currently inexplicable phenomena have a natural explanation.
Let's say we can see a man walking on water. Perhaps His ability to walk on water is supernatural. We train our scientific instruments on him/Him and we cannot detect any natural trick. No strange quantum fields made by advanced alien technology, no trickery or wires, the water just seems to support him. We can speculate that He is indeed the son of God, or we can reserve judgement pending further information or increments to human scientific knowledge. Science can form no conclusions about such matters. It can only say, "not yet understood".
Actually I misread what you said. I don't agree. I would word it as follows, "Science can only investigate the natural, so let's see if we can use science to understand what is happening here."
Science definitely doesn't say "Nothing is supernatural". Science has nothing to say at all about the supernatural. Science is the study of the natural.
At a low ange and at a distance, this would look like "walking on water". I am sure that Jesus had this technology.
LOL, I like that statement.
It doesn't mean that scientists themselves have to reject the supernatural. Its just that they can only ever make scientific progress by assuming that currently inexplicable phenomena have a natural explanation.
No I'm not saying anything about scientists. We can no more separate the religion from the scientist than from the politician. Note: I consider atheist a religion, fwiw.
Let's say we can see a man walking on water. Perhaps His ability to walk on water is supernatural. We train our scientific instruments on him/Him and we cannot detect any natural trick. No strange quantum fields made by advanced alien technology, no trickery or wires, the water just seems to support him. We can speculate that He is indeed the son of God, or we can reserve judgement pending further information or increments to human scientific knowledge. Science can form no conclusions about such matters. It can only say, "not yet understood".
Good mental exercise. So much more useful than responses like "Ice, or bugs", and much appreciated. I'm able to follow your thought and I'm with you 100 percent again but I'd only have to add, that the "not yet understood" part would remain forever. The abilities of science to understand the natural world will continue to increase but they will never cross that line into the supernatural. I guess all I've been trying to say is that since science can never cross that line, to me, it is atheistic rather than agnostic. It starts out with there is no supernatural and it is unable to ever get past that. Maybe to some definition of agnostic and on some technicality this well seem to be more agnostic to many. So at that point it's perhaps only a semantics discussion.