You are beginning to catch on here. Theism is not an attempt to explain any natural phenomena – at least not in materialistic terms. Other than creationist fundamentalists, very few theists (very few, if any here, I would venture) offer up theism as a way to explain anything scientifically.
And you would almost certainly be wrong. Deadly wrong. I’m with @George on this one. If a titan appears, I’ll be hiding somewhere --a useless thing to do if the titan was somehow an “omniscient god”. Whether or not it had aspirations toward deity, it would very likely have nothing to do with the real creator God of Christianity unless perchance sent as an agent of judgment.
This view would be a relapse back into that caricature of Christianity that can only imagine a god as a most powerful, but still localized agent - a demi-urge. It tries to hearken back to Old Testament understandings and fails to even get there as it lands instead on narrow modern fundamentalistic attitudes merely imposed on the Old Testament.
But you are right that theology fails to give what it does not offer: scientific explanation. We already live in this house and have been living here for a while. And we welcome you in as a guest; after which you curiously proceed to inform your hosts where their house is as if they wouldn’t already know this. Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that we ought to be living elsewhere?
My understanding (for examples of healing) is doctors and specialists have made thorough examinations before and after such an event, and they pronounced the patient healed, without identifying a cause initiated by them. The explanation for this may or may not be faith based, but in relevant cases, the patient claims to have prayed for healing and believes her prayer was answered.
I have not indicated any other means to assess such events.
I suggest your understanding of faith may be different to mine. I would agree with this however; if anyone wishes to convince others of faith by performing parlour tricks, I would regard such as a fraud or worse. Faith is predicated on freedom and the uninhibited intellectual questioning.
I am unaware of a scientific method to assess miracles - if that is what you seek, This has nothing to do with challenging anyone’s belief, and miracles, as shown in the Gospels, are prone to cause all sorts of responses from people - nor are miracles meant to provide an alternate explanation, so I guess we end up with little in the way of science. I think the only person who would have a meaningful opinion would be the recipient of a miracle. The rest of us may talk and talk…
.
I would heartily agree. This is why I pointed out that it is a bit unfair to blame scientists for “not considering a creator” in their research.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:723, topic:36256”]
But you are right that theology fails to give what it does not offer: scientific explanation. We already live in this house and have been living here for a while. And we welcome you in as a guest; after which you curiously proceed to inform your hosts where their house is as if they wouldn’t already know this. Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that we ought to be living elsewhere?
[/quote]
This subthread, which has probably grown well beyond what it should have, started with this statement from Swamidass:
“Science does not consider supernatural (God-like) causes. This is very well established. It is often referred to as Methodological Naturalism, but has roots in theology.”
I was merely pointing out that science needs testable hypotheses, so it is the untestable nature of claimed supernatural events that keep them out of science. I think we seem to have agreement on that point, but if I am wrong then I will let you clarify and leave it at that.
The quote from Swadimass above flirts with just that:
“Science does not consider supernatural (God-like) causes. This is very well established. It is often referred to as Methodological Naturalism, but has roots in theology.”
Perhaps I am misunderstanding or projecting my own biases onto that quote, but that seems to be what it says.
