Many make the argument that just because science keeps looking for the natural even if the face of a real miracle, hypothetically, that this does not imply that it is in any way

You may do your science and get results. Can you imagine getting something which makes you argue that the existence of God must be unlikely? Can you imagine a result that rules out the action of God?

If you say your findings show there is or is no God or that we cannot tell then what? People say that you are making an inference and it is not the findings telling you anything about God. It is you. It is your opinion or belief. Even if you are a scientist this is your inference and opinion and it is not science but perhaps theology or philosophy. No inference gets scientific credibility just by being voiced by a scientist.

Seems fair. But how right are they? It is not science to argue against, “Some finding might show there cannot be any divine or supernatural power.” Science is about testing and getting on with it and refusing no task.

Scientists can guess and make theories but these are necessary for you have to start somewhere. But the method is testing and testing and testing. It is about evidence ultimately and what it points to.

If some claimed miracle or supernatural event is dealt with by scientific testing, the science means you keep testing and testing as in looking for a natural explanation. You may never find it but that does not mean it is non-existent. If it might be there, that is all you need to do to justify searching. Science is a search for the natural.

Some say this is wrong for it is a bias against God and his miracle powers. Scientists may answer that God doesn’t have to be involved but might be. Believers want them to say that. Yet it contradicts their argument that scientists do not infer things as scientists.

Many admit that finding something has no natural explanation and saying it must be God’s work indeed conflicts with science. How? Because it makes out that religion is threatened if science can fill the gap and strengthened when it cannot. Also it is not evidence. Lack of evidence for the natural means you are guessing if you say it must be God. Guessing is the polar opposite of testing.

Remember we said that if there might be a natural explanation we have to keep searching for it. What if the explanation is supernatural? Who says it is going to be just supernatural? There could be more natural involved in it than supernatural. So even then you focus on the natural. If there has to be a choice, that is what goes in the peer journal not the supernatural.

Should we keep searching for the natural if hypothetically we know it cannot apply? Yes if it is true that science is about checking and re-rechecking and avoiding anything that injects opinions.

You will be told that science cannot tell you why we exist when we might not. Or why we have the natural laws we have instead of others. Or if our lives and existence have ultimate value.

Lourdes etc
Free Books