> Okay, that's a good point. I agree that something supernatural could be observed (though it wouldn't be necessarily provably supernatural). What's missing is another crucial element: the ability to be predicted accurately after some sort of law is formulated.

I'm leaving the bulk of this discussion up to you to, but this caught my eye. If we're talking about generic "supernatural phenomena" (however one defines "supernatural") then this is sound reasoning as far as I can tell.

However, the premises Monkeyman (and me, for that matter) are coming into this discussion in acceptance of is that the particular supernatural force in question is God, a person, not God, a property.

Take you. Are you explainable by science? Your physical body certainly is. But what happens if I walk up to you and say, "Hello, my name is Snarly Fuzzpracket." What do you do? Do you say, "Hello" and give your name? Do you frown and move on. Do you smile and nod? Do you strike up a conversation? Do you shake hands and ask what you can do for him? Do you punch him in the mouth? Or might it depend on Mr. Snarly Fuzzpracket's dress and manner, and your mood, and where you are at the time, and what you're doing, and how much sleep you got the night before? Might it also depend on your free will, which allows you to take any number of actions under identical circumstances? Even without the free will part, can one observe you and formulate testable hypotheses? Can you be observed in a lab, and, if you respond with, "Hello," enough times in a row, can a law be formulated that dictates you will not subsequently say, "Hi"? If such a law is made, and you do in fact say, "Hi," on occasion, does it even make sense to take this into account as "new evidence" and set about revising hypotheses in an attempt to determine the exact, invariable manner in which you will react?

A lot of perspective comes from treating God as a person instead of as a phenomenon. It does not invalidate science as a means to explore God's existence and involvement with the world -- for there surely ARE things science CAN say about you as a person and the effect you have in the world (your body works according to the discoveries made in the field of biology; your interaction with the world follows the laws of physics; and so forth). But thinking of God as a person explains why it is rational to expect that there *is* a part of Him that cannot be defined and predicted by science, and it illustrates why science's inability to completely define God does not therefore make God unworthy of consideration by logically minded thinkers.