Message #705

[Tabba]

Hi, AndyHB. Thanks for your post.

Tabba, I think the problem is that much of the evidence is personal experience, which can't be scientifically proven, while other evidence is so abstract as to be impossible to pin down concretely.

I would say that the problem comes into play when nothing, in relation to a god entity, is proven to exist with scientific means. Ever.

One would think that at least something could be shown to exist.

Ok, so you say that your ankle was healed after praying. Can anyone be certain that it was prayer that caused a healing? Nope. People believe that it was, but they cannot evidence, even to themselves, that it was a direct result of supernatural intervention by means of prayer-response.
Can anyone be certain that it was a christian god that answered their prayer as opposed to, say, a Hindu god? Nope. People believe by faith that it was, which, again, is circular reasoning.

There is always the possibility that your own body healed itself. This is normal, natural and easily explainable using scientific methodology. Our bodies, after all, are self-healing machines, much of the time. Only a believer would attribute it to their god, which is that faith-based circular reasoning again. I couldn't find that any more reliable an explanation than believing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster healed my hearing problem last year. However, I prayed to no god, yet it healed anyway.

Equally, there are issues that science not only doesn't answer, but has tried to answer without success which indicate that there is something outside of purely scientific/biological evolution at work in our world.

Is it more likely, or reasonable, to note that science cannot YET answer these questions, or that this is empirical evidence that there is a supernatural entity at work?

If science has reached its ultimate level of understanding and has no more possible answers to find or discoveries to make, then perhaps that claim may be more appropriate. Of course, science is an evolving entity that does not claim to know everything at this time. Often, some theists tend to apply the special-pleading fallacy to support their own faith-beliefs.

For instance, just why do X and Y love each other?

One [falsifiable] explanation would be that hormonal changes happen, brought about by conscious/sub-conscious awareness, causing feelings of love. An evolutionary argument suggests that love is necessary for bonding to facilitate procreation in order for the species to survive.

There are bona fide alternatives to claiming that it can only be the end result of a god at work in the world.

We're constantly being told that we have to be compatible with a partner, that we have to share interests, etc. for a relationship to survive - yet we can all think of couples who not only survive but actively thrive despite having totally diverse interests and activities.

I would say that those who tell us this (which, I agree they do) are merely representing their own opinion on matters.

I think it's also fair to note that many couples who are very similar and have the same interests do not love each other for more than the initial 6 months required for procreation. And, thus, they split up before making a long-term commitment.


In my experience, I find that the god-argument is too quickly offered as an explanation for things that can easily be explained with scientific evidence.

I'd be excited to be proven wrong as I'd love to know if a god really does exist.


Thanks again for your post, Andy.