You can’t do science if the phenomenon is unexplainable due to it not having a cause. The phenomenon may be currently unexplainable, but is not by itself unexplainable, so there are two senses that a phenomenon is unexplainable.
First, how do you determine if something does not have a cause?
If it has a cause then science can take something that is unexplainable and potentially find an explanation, correct?
What are you asking me for? All I know is you can’t have an infinite number of them 
Not all causes are explainable or predictable. Like when I am flipping the coin, if I’m really good at it, I could confound your model as to what outcome there should be.
I was thinking this isn’t that far fetched if you were to consider using a larger than average coin for this experiment. The 2019 Apollo 50th anniversary silver dollar is a 5 ounce coin with a 3 inch diameter.
There may be an analogy to God’s providence in that. Winning five separate lotteries in 48 hours… I’m recalling what ChatGPT answered. And I just noticed that I left out the 48-hour specification. (Newbies might wonder what this is about – it’s about the second account here.)
1 Like
So I queried it again adding the 48 hour stipulation, and the answer changed from “practically impossible” to “virtually impossible.” I’m not sure how much more impossible that is, but some. 
I was rereading my previous comment about what an outcome should look like and how this is an ontological statement about the previous conditions.
If an outcome is undirected it could be uniform and it could be chaotic. @T_aquaticus making reference to a particular outcome that is evenly distributed because of how it was directed doesn’t prove what an undirected outcome should be.
Now I don’t believe you can have uncaused outcomes, but let’s suppose you can for the sake of having a fruitful discussion, it doesn’t follow the uncaused outcome should be predictable.
Whether it’s uniform or chaotic or both, it’s also a genuine possibility that an undirected or uncaused outcome is entirely whatever you make it be. Which goes back to the thing in QM about subject-object interaction.
How do you determine if a cause is unexplainable?
That’s explainable.
Then scientific models are as ontological as saying that flipping a fair coin 1,000 times should produce around a 50/50 split between heads and tails. I have no problem with that.
Are you saying that we can’t even consider the idea that the outcome we see is due to random processes?
Unpredictable is what I had in mind. While you can explain the outcome is the way it is because I caused it. I don’t think you would be able to explain why one outcome I cause is uniform and another is not uniform.
Are we supposing there can be uncaused or undirected outcomes?
Because it seems like the outcome you are modeling based on flipping a coin in the gravitational waves and magnetic winds, isn’t uncaused or undirected.
Lightning is unpredictable, and yet we can explain what causes it.
The decay of an atomic nuclei is considered to be uncaused, yet we can explain why it happens.
Providential ‘manipulation’ is not explainable by science, let alone recognized, but God’s M.O. is observable. “Virtually impossible” multiple lottery wins by a particular person in crisis at a particular time in her life at several particular times within 48 hours and at several particular places. Timing and placing. But I am not going to convince you.
The grounds of [true] belief in God is the experience of God: God is not the conclusion of an argument but the subject of an experience report.
Roy Clouser
What’s the main reason, not reasons, on why you are a Christian? - #56 by RoyC
Science can’t explain how humans can flip a coin?
If you could predict who was going to win before the numbers were drawn that would be more impressive. It would also be more impressive if you compared the numbers of people in the general population who fall into the “in crisis at a particular time in her life” and those not in that group, and then compare those numbers to the people who win the lottery.
Like I said,
I didn’t expect you to be impressed – you’re not looking for God. I rather think you are daring us to “prove” him to you.
To a degree, it is and isn’t. There are certain causal factors which are impossible to model. And there are others which make storm detection a possibility.
It may have an unobservable cause, which may also be unobservable by nature.
But I’m more interested to see a physicist have this discussion about nuclear decay once they have understood that an uncaused cause is unobservable by nature.
Not many physicists are interested in understanding something that appears to be entirely invented based on a whim.
That would only be the case if they don’t have an appreciation for the history of philosophy
The reason is that it is self-evident to me that the gospel is the truth about God from God.
Like other self-evident truths, we check on belief in God to see if it is further confirmed in our experience. This checking takes many forms: seeing if further experience is what we would expect if the belief were true; seeing whether it gives us guidance in making sense of our lives; affording insight into specific areas of human interest such as education, law, and ethics; and many more. The gospel need not specifically mention such things, since it tacitly endorses beliefs it always assumes.
2 Likes