We seem to have gotten into a bit of a quote war. I'll throw in one from Socrates. "The most knowledgable men are those who know that they know very little."
I believe in the supernatural. Because we seem to have had some argument as to the definiton of that word, I'll clarify slighty. I don't believe in things that can't exist. By the same token, I believe in ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, magic, the lochness monster and anything that can make a halfway decent argument for itself. People who suggest that the things on that list can't be real because they don't follow the laws of physics or nature assume far too much about human understanding.
A good 98% of our universe is composed of dark matter. A substance we can't detect directly with any equipment known to man. We presume it's there because we need it to be there to make the math work and we can see the effects it has on gravity. But, for practical purposes, it's invisible, intangible and incorporeal.
Additionally, current scientific doctrine dictates the existence of at least 10 dimensions. These are, once again, invisible, intangible, incorporeal and beyond the reach of current scientific observation. We only presume their existence because we need them to be there for the math to work. Despite this, they are intrical to the underlying functioning of our universe and have countless affects on our everyday life.
In fact every scientist in this room who deserves the title will happily admit that what we are currently capable of observing and expaining with 100% certainty and accuracy accounts for less than 1% of our universe. And yet, how dare anyone have the gall to suggest that there are processes in nature science has not yet documented?
I would remind everyone here that the laws of physics are not the central unchallengable axioms of the unvierse and all its dimesions. We invented the laws of physics. They're usefull for explaining observable phenomina and justifying patterns but, again, I would remind that 99% of the universe and all it's dimensions are unobservable to humans. Therefore, saying something can't exist because it's contrary to the rules you set up in the infancy of your understanding is an extremely unstatisfying argument.
I'm not dissing science. Science is the best (and in most cases only) route to discovering truths. By the same token when it dissmisses ideas out of hand because they opposes it's pre-existing belief structure, it sure doesn't look like science anymore. It starts to look like a religion and, similiarly, it ceses to accomplish truely great things.
That's my opinion on the matter anyway. I completely believe in the supenatural (or perhaps better put as 'the unexplained') and I voted "Yes, but it doesn't bother me much".
(Oh, and just cause I can't help myself, ThrobbingEgo's assertion that magic isn't real because Disney hasn't monoploized on it is flawed logically. It'd circular logic. Why hasn't Disney monoploized on magic? Because it isn't real. How do you know it isn't real? Becuase disney hasn't monoplized on it. Ask yourself this, no one is producing hydrogen powered-cars. Does that mean there's no such thing as hydrogen?)
