“The complete sentence would be: Maybe a better answer is that we don’t know yet but we are only willing to consider one possibility.... that it occurred naturally.”
The scientific method only has tools that can deal with the natural. How do you propose that science investigates the supernatural? What would such an experiment look like, how would the results be demonstrated?
“None of those things violate natural law, they are part of nature. The two examples that I gave (and there are others) do.”
Scientific laws are valid until evidence of sufficient weight is brought to light that requires them to be re-evaluated.
The point I was making is that all of those things were considered at one time to be supernatural. The reason you class them as being part of ‘natural law’ is that science has shown them to be so. So again, what makes you think that the things you consider now to be likely of supernatural origin won’t at some point to also be shown to be part of natural law?
Maybe you just need to research the Bible here bub. Covers over 1500 years being compiled in 3 different languages on 3 different continents and yet time and again each and every chapter in it either alludes to our Saviour or names Him directly. How is the message so consistent over 40 scribes and 66 different chapters. Name one other book, Holy or not, that even comes close to all of these facts.
How did it come into being? Why is it the #1 book in the world today? Are the miracles and supernatural events in it just made up stories? If so, then Jesus Christ was nothing but a fictional character and yet the conundrum - how did He affect the lives and historical reporting of so many - a man who held no office, no power, no money, no prestige...
Here’s a simple one to remember Psalm 22 [the 23rd Psalm is the one most often repeated at funerals] - look at it and realize how accurately it describes Jesus sacrifice - written hundreds of years before he was born yet also hundreds of years before crucifixion was invented.
***The scientific method only has tools that can deal with the natural. How do you propose that science investigates the supernatural?***
I never suggested that it could be. My point is that science (at the present and in general) is undergirded by a belief that there are natural answers for everything. This is a belief just like my belief in God. It is not knowable and therefore philosophical.
I believe that the evidence, when evaluated with an open mind, points toward a Creator.
Bill Gates once said: “DNA is like a computer program only far, far more complex than any computer program ever invented.”
You would never believe that a computer could program itself (unless it was programmed to program itself) but yet you seem to believe (I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that complex life did just that.
Occam’s Razor would tell you (in my opinion and in this instance) that a Creator is the most logical explanation. Your philosophy throws Him out before the evidence is even evaluated.
In essence, “There is no God, now let’s look at the evidence”. By doing that, you’re going to see what you want to see.
As I said in an earlier post... If the keys are in the kitchen and you refuse to look there, you are never going to find them.
Don’t be afraid to look elsewhere, Natufian.