Replies

***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.

Despite agreeing that science doesn’t have the tools to investigate the supernatural, you still want it to accept it’s existence? You also want an area of study that only deals in the knowable do bring into it’s realm the unknowable?

So, we come back again to the issue of how exactly is science supposed to do this? Rather than complaining about how science isn’t jumping through the impossibly difficult hoops that you place before it, why don’t you describe how it it should achieve what you want? Describe an experiment that scientists can undertake that can deal with the supernatural/unknowable. List out the steps needed, how the results can be tabulated and peer reviewed.