The Clash Between Science & Religion

No, I don't have to prove they exist.  They're supernatural, remember?

It simply means not bound by natural law. Is that what you mean when you say "literally beyond nature"?

So Google is only an algorithm when you aren't looking up etymological origins? Quoting a web page that says the same thing as you did doesn't help me understand what you meant.

If something is "literally beyond nature," would it be bound by natural law?

I don't see the clash.  They don't compete.  One deals with one thing, and the other with something else. 

Not only is there no clash... but often one reinforces the other. That's why you find a higher degree of mathematicians, physicists, and astronomers believe/acknowledge God's existence. Indeed, it's more a question of how much of God's being/nature we can try our best to understand (but will always come up short). I myself came to better understand the probabilities and nature of God through science and math. Paul is wrong as God by definition is not natural, but supernatural.

Maybe we have a different definition for the word "clash" then.  

That’s a personal philosophy, and certainly scientists can have mystical and religious experiences, but none of them would claim their belief in this experience is back up by evidence. That’s what Paul has been saying. Maybe you guys should read Paul before asking Paul a question. 

Science is a realm of evidence, faith is belief in the absence of evidence. The moment you require evidence for God, you’ve lost faith. 

The clash is, until a few hundreds years ago all of us would be burned at the stake for talking like we do…including Clusim. 

The end result is philosophical whether it be naturalistic or supernaturalistic. How one comes to said conclusions can depend upon a variety of circumstances whether it be culture, personal experience, or their field of expertise. I simply listed an example of sciences where their particular fields lended more credibility towards supernaturalism based upon their expertise. So while proof for either naturalism/supernaturalism is lacking...evidence is abundant. What one concludes form said evidence depends upon the individual. As I also became more learned in these fields it only strengthened the hypothesis of a supernaturalistic interpretation while weakening the naturalistic one. Providing evidence can strengthen faith. I see no rule that dictates you lose faith by learning more about the nature of God's world.

Both conclusions in naturalism and supernaturalism can use faith as a guiding motivator. I found the scientific evidence seems to be more in line with the aforementioned fields towards a supernaturalistic interpretation. The bigger question is if God is more a personal or impersonal being and if personal, how can it be known?