And what will that prove?  That I have a computer?  That it needs a power cord?

I would argue that the argumentative equivalent of that is just saying QED.

And yes, it takes more than one observation, but all it takes is a repeatable phenomenon that contradicts a theoyr and the theory's gone, out the window, bye-bye.

As to matter: uh..... that's not actually what the conservation of matter and energy says, to the best of my knowledge. Relativity allows that matter isn't anything except for jellied energy, and matter is destroyed and converted into energy all the time. It's the sum total mass + energy that never changes, and there has never been a point in history where that sum total has ever changed, ever. Ever. Not even the Big Bang, because everything was there to start with.

Either way, it's unnecessary.

That's what I said; enough observations will unseat the idea.

My scenario with Rath was hypothetical; I was just proposing a situation in which two observations contradicted.   We're discussing the possibility of a supernatural answer.

Matter is created all the time through quantum flukes all throughout the universe. Like I said: that's not what the law of conservation of mass and energy says. Mass can be created, but it is created from energy. This actually happens a lot.

He was just pointing out that multiple phenomena are not necessary.  

And supposing that it was shown that mass was being created without any apparent use of or decline in energy, that might unseat much of physics but science is not capable of concluding that a supernatural force is the cause of any phenomenon.  "For reasons unknown" is the closest it can come.  And "for reasons unknown" is all that would happen, not "oops we can't answer this (YET) so I guess the scientific method should be discarded".  

As I said, my example with Rath is not intended to be an actual one; it's only purpose was to attempt to demonstrate that science does have the ability to propose a divine answer.

For instance, when he put it to me to give such an example he allowed for it to be ''real or not".

Uh, appolose, in Science - I mean true, pure science, not anything skewed by financial research - if you have two contradictory readings or scenario you don't reach for supernatural, you realize that you're missing something that currently remains unknown.

For example, initially, when Einstein and others we're getting into relativity, etc. such contradictions seemed to occur - the key one being that light, no matter how measured, always seemed to be going at the same speed irrespective of the observer. At first this seemed contradictory to other measurements that would imply it should differ.

However, Einstein didn't reach for supernatural, he realised that they were all missing something fundamental, and that the contradictory readings were simply confirming this.

So far as we know currently, and can confirm via tests, he was right, because he then went on to work out the missing element - that the speed of light can remain the same because time can vary to allow for it, respective to different frames of reference.

I guess you're posing a thought experiment - but so far, in my view, there has never been (and never will be) a genuine case of true contradictory results.

As always, it will just mean we're missing something crucial that can appear to cause a contradiction when in fact there is none (once you work out he missing crucial factor).

It will make you unable to do whatever it is you think you are doing right now.

This conversation is quite weird.

In my scenario, if it were a case of us missing something, then I am positing that to assume so would be to contradict a basic tenet (that's better, eh?) of science. While you may be right in saying this is a thought experiment, my point is merely to demonstrate that is is possible for science to come to a supernatural conclusion.