I keep forgetting Calypsis is an ultra-literalist in all things. For that reason, it is necessary to point out to him .... repeatedly ..... that we are speaking of the NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences. We call them "natural" and "physical" for a reason.... one that Calypsis inexplicably cannot seem to understand despite his claimed quarter century career as a science teacher.
NATURAL science deals with that which is NATURAL. Hence "NATURAL science" is all about knowledge of the natural. In a similar vein, PHYSICAL science deals with that that is PHYSICAL. Hence "PHYSICAL science" is all about knowledge that which is physical. These sciences rely on the constancy of natural law. When God chooses to suspend natural law and perform a Supernatural act, He is operating outside the restrictions of the NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences.
It's not that we can't discuss supernatural acts. It's just that miracles cannot be investigated within the limitations of physics, chemistry, or biology. Perhaps with his vast experience as a teacher, Calypsis can produce just ONE equation in physics that includes a "God factor."
Calypsis doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between the supernatural / metaphysical / philosophical / theological forms of knowledge and the physical / natural realm of knowledge. His narrow-mindedness and inability to deal with even the simplest of calculations is not my problem.
Pi, can you give a consistent, unambiguous definition of NATURAL? I've used this illustration before, and I'll use it here again. Is the proposition of a man walking on water a NATURAL process? Right out of the starting gate it meets the criteria for being a PHYSICAL process. You have a man, you have water, both PHYSICAL entities. But is the process of a man walking on water a NATURAL process? If so, how so? If not, why not?
And here is the point. Whether you claim it to be NATURAL (and I would be scratching my head if you did), or, as most people would do, claim it would be an UNNATURAL occurrence because it appears to contradict Archimedes' principle of fluid displacement (not the law of gravity as some would mistakenly assume), something you can EXPERIMENTALLY verify over and over again, do you also apply this same definition of NATURAL to claims of universal common descent, Big Bang cosmology, the origin of the solar system, etc.?
Is investigating whether a man walked on the water within the purview of science? Or is it beyond the scope of science, and a matter of HISTORICAL evidence.