Reductionism isn’t the same as naturalism. Sure, some things may be complex and difficult to figure out, but I don’t see how that pushes us away from natural explanations that seem to have a lot of evidence behind them.
We can see how matter in the past interacted consistently in a mathematical and logical manner across the universe. Logic and math existed before humans existed, and even before the Earth existed. We can see it.
What happened to your post about hyperbole? Am I not supposed to use hyperbole? The Bible uses hyperbole. I will put it another way-- there are many, many, many papers on origin of life research. If you watched the video you found on Professor Dave vs James Tour you would see some of them.
Here’s a shorter video: Elucidating the Agenda of James Tour: A Defense of Abiogenesis
So where do these guys talk about the latest origin of life research?
Most of this is just silly because there’s nothing in it that science would care about. “God of the Gaps” is not something that arises from scriptural assertions but from claimed inability of science to explain certain things. And the history of science is a long one of discoveries that explained previously unexplained things, which make the “God of the Gaps” doomed – possibly not on every point, but given the track record that’s not something worth betting on.
Basically the only substantive part of your objection here boils down to argument from incredulity, which is even less helpful than the “God of the Gaps”.
While Georges LeMaitre was a devout RC priest, He did not wish for his Big Bang theory to be used for apologetics.
Okay, and?
I forget which cosmologist wrote it but I read a book last year arguing that fine tuning isn’t real. It was one of those books that I could understand while reading it but not after finishing it; all I recall at this point is that there were some good arguments that not all the constants etc. are fine-tuned but thinking at the time that there are enough of them that while some may not be enough are that it is at the very least suspicious.
I suppose I should see if I can uncover who the author was.
John Polkinghorne said that while the multiverse was speculation, it would not be incompatible with God’s fruitfulness in creation.
That’s funny 
I’m so not ever going to be in a position to read a book like you are reading now. But I can look at a recent picture of the cosmic web, I mean galaxies flowing in magnetic streams, wow! I don’t know how an atheist sees that and not feel confused.
To say that the supernatural doesn’t exist is not a scientific statement. But excluding supernatural explanations (methodological naturalism) has been very helpful to science. Do you believe in demon possession? And don’t give me that urban legend about [white] missionaries visiting foreign [darker-skinned] people whose behavior can only be explained by demon possession.
In most cases we are all methodological naturalists at heart. If we lose our car keys, we don’t assume that a fairy took them.
Don’t fall for the empty rhetoric and sophistry of “professor” Dave. He uses such language to describe anyone who disagrees with him (look at his Twitter replies) and clearly knows little about scientific methodology. I know Prof Tour personally (though not well) and while I disagree with his view that we are “clueless” on OOL, Dave’s attacks are uncharitable and misrepresent Tour’s views.
This still presupposes our views around time and the past are reliable and our minds have a methodology of coming to understand such a reality. Any naturalistic or materialistic cosmological account thus needs to avoid the problem of Boltzmann Brains if it argues our epistemic attitudes towards anything (including scientific theories) is justified.
Such radical skepticism isn’t just an intellectual exercise; it’s a serious problem for those claiming the scientific method can produce a “true” account of the world and then arguing for a cosmology where the most probable outcomes/universes are those that undermine external reality and/or our reasons for thinking it would be true in the first place.
Of course, I do not mean to imply all naturalistic accounts of mind are self-defeating. But the assumptions made for the positive epistemic content of our minds need to be taken on a kind of faith because such things cannot be falsified. Some (like Plantinga) argue that this same sort of justification works equally well for theism.
It is true that Professor Dave has never been to charm school. It’s also true that a person who lies about science to defend their faith would resonate with most people here. But how is Dave misrepresenting Tour’s views??
Tour never claims a miracle is necessary for the origin of life or that “God did it.”
Tour claims his religion plays no part in his scientific work (If Farina wants to make the claim this is what fuels Tour’s criticisms, he bears the burden of proof of showing it)
Farina is equally uncharitable to those who disagree with him on social media and elsewhere, which is why despite originally thinking he was right about Tour in the past, I don’t take his accusations seriously anymore.
That makes me want to know more about this Farina character! Not. 
There is a difference between speculation and arguments. I don’t think there is anything wrong about looking in wonder at a question that doesn’t have an apparent answer and wondering “maybe God…” It’s when people try to turn that wondering into an argument for God’s existence or action in the world that you run into logical and theological problems. So I guess it depends on what you mean by argument and valid. There are logical rules for what makes a conclusion follow from a premise and I don’t think “God of the gaps” arguments follow. But that doesn’t mean it’s never “valid” to wonder about God’s presence or action in the world.
I don’t think a supernatural answer can ever be “the best possible answer” to a scientific question because science is specifically looking for natural answers and that it a main critieria for what qualifies an explanation as valid, as you point out. If you remove methodological naturalism, then the values that underlie a subjective assessment like “best” are negotiable. Invoking God as a causal factor is “valid” when everyone in the discourse community agrees that supernatural hypotheses are acceptable.
However, even if everyone is on the same page about entertaining God hypotheses, there are still theological objections to bringing God into the equation only when “natural” explanations are lacking or fail. It relegates divine action to a narrower and narrower realm, as more natural explanations become available and it’s usually based on a dualistic way of viewing the world in which causes are either/or when it comes to natural/supernatural. This strikes me as a very modern, Western, Enlightenment perspective on reality that simply isn’t shared by all of humanity.
I don’t think that is the case because we can make predictions based on our views and see if future data support them.
I think most people are more pragmatic. We use the scientific method because it works. Philosophers can define True™ however they want, but I don’t think most people care. What they care about is if their ideas work.
There are very basic axioms we all have to take on faith in order to do something as simple as cross the road or throw a baseball. Again, these are just very basic pragmatic assumptions about reality.
Fine, I won’t read them. It would be a waste of time anyway, because you are constantly shifting the goalposts. We need Airtags on them so I can keep track.
Did I say Dave Farina had written peer-reviewed papers? Did Dave Farina claim he had written peer-reviewed papers? Where did that idea come from? It’s obvious that he knows the OOL literature. I can point you to many OOL papers? What professional databases do you have access to?
.
Please see this video:
Elucidating the Agenda of James Tour: A Defense of Abiogenesis
See the aforementioned video or watch the debate itself. Both men can be rude, but Tour spouts lots of misinformation. And the histrionics!
At the end of the day, there are good reasons to believe in God. But scientific ignorance is a terrible place to look for God. And we shouldn’t feign scientific ignorance to provide a hiding place for God. He’s not a cockroach.
If anything in nature and history, including texts of stories, was anomalous, unnatural, anachronistic, impossible, inconsilient.
The question of invoking God as a causal factor is largely a matter of personal belief and varies among individuals and philosophical traditions. There are those who believe in a divine being or a higher power that has a direct influence on the world, including natural processes and events. For them, invoking God as a causal factor may be valid in various circumstances, such as explaining the origin of the universe, the purpose of life, or certain aspects of the natural world.
In religious contexts, many people find comfort, guidance, and a sense of meaning by attributing events to the will of God or invoking divine intervention. For them, God may be seen as the ultimate cause behind certain phenomena or outcomes.
It is worth noting that invoking God as a causal factor falls within the realm of faith and religion, which is a distinct domain from scientific inquiry. Science typically seeks naturalistic explanations based on empirical evidence and testable hypotheses, while religious or theological explanations often involve matters of faith and belief.
Different philosophical and theological perspectives exist on the compatibility of scientific and religious explanations. Some people find ways to reconcile scientific knowledge and religious beliefs, seeing them as complementary approaches to understanding different aspects of reality. Others view them as separate domains that address distinct questions and should not be conflated.
Ultimately, whether invoking God as a causal factor is valid or not depends on an individual’s personal beliefs, religious or philosophical convictions, and the specific context in which the question is being considered.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
