> 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?

No, we can't predict human behavior, but that may only be because the human brain is so incredibly complex, far beyond our current abilities to model accurately enough to predict. It doesn't mean the chain of cause-and-effect couldn't be traced given sufficiently good measurements and computational power. It may be possible in theory (assuming the absence of free will) to predict when I'd say "Hi!", or ignore the person, or any other outcome, but we'll undoubtedly never be nearly sophisticated enough to be able to do so in practice. Then, of course, it might be impossible even in theory because of inherent uncertainty such as quantum theory would dictate, etc..

As another example, say I have a large collection of a few billion pebbles which I propose to toss down a mountainside at a circular target. Can I predict the outcome, namely how many pass through the target? No, but only because of the unimaginable complexity of the system (it's much more complex than the human brain, but I hope the point comes across).

Basically, as I said to Monkeyman, when I say "able to be predicted," I don't mean "able to be predicted right now." If that differs from what it takes to be scientifically explainable, then it's just the terminology confusing me again.

> 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?
>

Well, it would be premature to try to formulate a law governing my behavior given our state of knowledge. Monkeyman said that using science to investigate a phenomenon, question, etc., we come up with the best hypothesis to explain it using previous knowledge/laws, and maybe that is indeed the correct methodology of science. So far, I have been using "scientifically explainable" to mean something which can be explained *eventually*, given enough time, not necessarily explainable right now or even in the next million years.

> 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.