I'd say you hit the nail on the head with repeatability. But when you're studying the supernatural, what you're looking for is the lack of repeatability. There must be some proof that the laws of nature is at some point inconsistent. Which is admittedly hard, and we've quite a bit to go before having consistent theories that cover everything. The best we have is to judge which explanation is the most reasonable, (and that doesn't mean just picking whatever sounds good. It requires masses amount of proof).
I would disagree that one is looking for lack of repeatability, rather one is looking for repeatable or at least frequent inconsistencies or illogicalities in the physical world which cannot reasonably addressed by physical sciences, and I do not exclude the fact that more answers will be found as scientific knowledge progresses. I hope someone will take me for a very cold shower if I ever suggest that everything we do not currently understand has to have a supernatural explanation.

God or anything supernatural isn't needed any longer to make a consistent model in the world. We've seen life spring up in vacuum from nothing but a couple of aminoacids and start reproducing in a laboratory spontaneusly. Introducing the concept of god into modern science today is standing it on it's head, making the models infinitely more complex. It just sounds easy..ie somebody just fixed it so we don't have to worry. But if god makes something from nothing, displacing matter each time it medles in the world, the effects would rapidly become catastrophic for us. Or maybe god thinks of that
Your example begs the question of how do you generate the first amino acids. That in itself does not prove the existence of a creator God, but it is a question to which I am yet to hear a plausible alternative answer. I do not see modern science and God as being in conflict, to take the relatively simple example of gravity which I cited before. That is fully predictable by simple equations without a supernatural constant or variable to complicate it. I would challenge anyone who plays the supernatural card as an easy explanation to an unsolved problem. I would also argue that there are times it is the only reasonable answer – that is unless as a primary condition you have discounted it as being unacceptable. I am always very sceptical of healings, the placebo effect works in all areas of life, however when you have a pair of scans, one showing a long term lesion and then a few weeks later, after request for supernatural intervention, another showing no lesion, one has to look beyond known science for an explanation.

Grins – well I would say that thankfully God is a pretty clued up guy, and yes, I think He would have thought of the issues regarding meddling.

There's not a lot in psychology that is considered science. The biology and neuroscience parts of psychology is very much proper science. But not the study of behaviour. Yes, they aply the scientific method, but their results are not repeatable in a way science accepts, which invalidates it as a scientific subject.
I could not agree more, very little of psychology is a science. That does not mean that it is invalid though, just that it has to be considered in a different light.

Trying to prove god by counting how many people have seen god just isn't valid evidence. Not acording to science. To reiterate. Because of the nature of the human brain, we cannot trust our own senses. We have to use external measurement devices. The human brain interprets all data instantly. Everything is filtered and nothing we see can be considered as raw data. Ie if we believe in god we can see god, if we don't we won't. This much psychology can tell us.
Is science the only acceptable proof of anything? I fully agree it is the easiest, but unless we wish to limit our thinking and appreciation of the world we have to go beyond its tempting simplicity.

"Perhaps that is the real definition of faith, is one prepared to step from the circle of disbelief into the circle of belief."

I agree. But to quote Martin Luther. "The authority of Scripture is greater than the comprehension of the whole of man's reason." ie just don't think. Faith is based on and needs blind unreasoning.
The authority of scripture, of God, of the church and secular bodies is something I have been giving a lot of thought to recently. It is a debate in its own right, but I would utterly refute your suggestion that the quote you gives means just don’t think. I don’t know the dynamics of your relationship with your slave, other than you are clearly delighted with her. I am quite sure that she has accepted your authority in at least many areas of her life, I am equally sure that you do would not wish her to stop thinking, to squash her personality or just blindly accept you.

I was brought up to accept the Christian faith because it was right, no questions asked. If you don’t understand that just shows that you are not old enough or not clever enough to understand. Now be a good girl and get your Sunday dress on. Hardly surprisingly, I rebelled against that, there is nothing blind or unreasoning about my belief. Furthermore, when I have interchange with people who have blindly accepted, I will gently challenge them to consider it. Not because I wish to change to their mind, but because I think it is important that something as important as a faith which influences the way you lead your life is carefully considered.

I still admire you for your courage. You are very intelligent and give me a good match. I too have promissed myself never to post in this thread or any relgion thread many times. I just get sucked into it. Where's my Master when I need one. It's just that I feel strongly about this subject. We've got religious propaganda blasting us continously from every direction. Even in atheist Sweden the assault of brainwashing propaganda is massive. I just feel we've got to fight it or it'll take over and take us out of the enlightened age. Each time I see polititians telling scientists what they can and can't study I always feel uneasy. The only measure should be whether people suffer from teh science. Right? Not if god likes it or not?
Nothing like a little flattery – but it cost more than that to buy me . But we could have a great dinner party for two, which would last well into the next day…

I am fortunate I live in part of the world/country where I do not have religious propaganda continuously thrust at me. In my view propaganda is wrong, even if what it is promoting is right. It encourages a blind acceptance and yes even possibly a brain washing. Further more, the God whom I believe in gave us freewill. If one accepts his existence and power then who better to brain wash us, yet he chose not to. If God thinks it is wrong to brain wash people into believing in him then it must be wrong for people to do so. (hmmm, that is rather a nice complete argument if you think it through.)

Should politicians tell scientists what they should and should not study? I would like to say that an ethical monitoring body, with a perfect crystal ball, (not politicians) should do so. Not all scientific discovery has been used for the good of mankind. But reality is that any such bar is only likely to delay the work, so I would propose that rather than barring scientific study and education we put even greater resources into ethical education which will hopefully ensure that discoveries are used wisely.

I don’t think the frontiers of science should be stopped because they might throw doubt on the supernatural. I have no wish to live with my head in the sand. I am confident enough in my faith to think that it will not be shaken by any discovery. If however it is, then I will have to reconsider my position in light of all the new evidence.

You say that you fear being taken out of the enlightened age. I went through to stage of embracing science as the beautiful explanation for our world, and just eagerly awaiting more discoveries to give more explanations. To me that was the dark age of my reasoning. My enlightenment came when I start to see how the physical and supernatural worlds co-exist, and I cannot see why God should not be pleased with each discovery which we make, regardless of which bit of the world it belongs to.

cariad