Replies

How does finding a scientific explanation for something prove that God DIDN'T make it?

It doesn't, because God's existence is not falsifiable. Just like I can't prove there isn't an invisible pink rabbit that follows me around. But there's no reason to believe in God or invisible rabbits if what we observe can be adequately explained without them. See Occam's Razor.

From your link on Occam's Razor: "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

and, "Stephen Hawking explains in A Brief History of Time:
'We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed.'"

lastly, "Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that 'Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses.'"

Occam's razor has been applied by scientists to rule out that which they can not prove and, as in the last quote above, that which they can not perceive. However, theologians and the faithful throughout the ages have acknowledged that God can't be proven nor perceived. He simply reveals Himself as He chooses. A scientist's failure to perceive does not disprove the reality. If it did, there would be no such thing as quantam physics.

On the flip side, the argument always ensues that God may not be able to be disproved but He can also not be proved. I disagree. As Occam's Razor suggests in its simplest translation, "that which is the simplest is the best explanation." Is it simplest to believe that the universe is one big accident or that there is a consciousness that guides its development? Many doctors, who's egos are in check, acknowledge that the more they learn about the body, the more they are convinced there is a God. Life is not an accident.

Those who believe find a greater understanding of reality. Those who refuse to see, blind themselves to the incredible bounty of creation. God has touched so many so personally that it is not hard at all to find those who have perceived Him.

What an empty existence it must be to not have a purpose in being. Oh... life does have a purpose? Given by whom? If you think deeply on the nature of reality, you find that there is no other plausible explanation or purpose for all that is than for creation to serve its creator.

Good. I'm glad that you're NOT saying that finding a scientific explanation for a phenomenon proves the non-involvement of God. But that being so, doesn't that prove the irrelevance of your original assertion--that some people attribute to God what they haven't explained in some other manner?

Hint: The metaphysical argument for the existence of God has nothing whatever to do with science or the current state of science. The only valid argument for the existence of God is based on EXPERIENCE, and it boils down to this: If everything that exists is contingent, then there would be nothing. But there is not nothing. Therefore, there is something that is necessary. (One then proceeds to examine in more detail what is necessarily true of a being which is itself necessary.)