Message #708

[AndyHB]

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.

If that's the case, then I think most of life doesn't exist, Tabba.  After all, can you scientifically prove to me that I love my wife, or my daughters; or prove scientifically why I enjoy helping develop a heritage railway?  There is far too much in life that has no scientific evidence - yet we know to exist - for your explanation to hold water.

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.

There is that possibility, Tabba, except that the circumstances of the injury were such that such a healing would have been scientifically impossible, or so I was told after the event by doctors.  Following the accident one of the tendons, torn in the accident, reattached itself out of place, thus creating the reduced mobility.  Several doctors, prior to the event I am describing asked me whether I was happy as i was, or whether I wanted to have it surgically repositioned.

As for whether it was Hindu, opposed to a Christian 'god', I wasn't aware that any sacrifices had been offered, as would normally be the case in any Hindu 'healing'.  Rather, the prayer had been specifically directed to the Christian God.  The fact that the change was all-but instantaneous indicates to me that (i) this was an answer to that specific prayer and (ii) that this was not some natural healing by my own body.

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?

To tell you the truth, I'd have to answer this question with 'Neither'.  As I said before, most of the evidence is of a personal nature and thereby almost impossible to replicate.

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.

Similarly, as most scientists acknowledge, for every answer they find, they find 2 or 3 new questions.  It would seem likely to me that, if science was what some scientists claim it to be, then rather than finding more new questions that new answers, it would be reducing the number of questions that we ask.

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.

But why is there any need for bonding?  After all, there are plenty of animals who not only do not bond other than to have intercourse, but who then completely ignore their offspring.  These species continue to this day, suggesting that this isn't an evolutionary need.

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

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

So, are you saying that scientists - who are often the ones telling us this - can be wrong, or biased or even non-objective?

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.

I tend to find that the 'god-argument' is too quickly offered as an explanation for things that can't easily be explained with scientific evidence.  At the same time, I find that many scientific expplanations don't actually answer the question i have asked - but answer a question that the scientist wants me to have asked, or thought I asked.

For instance, I regularly ask - here and elsewhere - why humanity exists.  Almost invariably, I am told that it exists as a result of evolution - and well it might, except that this has actually answered the question 'How?' rather than 'Why?'