Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]If one concludes, before the evidence is found, that nothing can be caused by God, then the evidence will never point towards Him. And that's not science.
I agree. Good science does not a priori reject the possibility of supernatural explanations. But it does lean toward a regimen of contingent naturalism. This is warranted since natur ...[text shortened]... damaged ear drums. How can we be sure that it was the work of your God and not the elvish?[/b]
Thank you for responding (I really do want to talk about this topic).
I agree with you, a miracle not evidence of God any more than it’s evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the problem I'm seeing is that this is where most scientific types stop (thus the 'evidence must to be looked before it can be found' statement).
But what if science did want to find out what cured the boy's ear?
Well, we have the entire list you gave (plus a bunch more) that are all equally likely to have done it. What would be a scientist's next step? He'd have to weed out that list, right?
We know that the SuperNatural Critter (SNC) that did the healing interacts with humans (it healed the boy). Thus it's logical to look for more evidence of SNCs interacting with humans.
We do have a short list of books that have been written that humans say are linked to some SNC. And it's reasonable to assume that if an SNC interacted with humans once, it would be willing to do it again. So maybe it already has.
Now we have 2 lists of SNCs, those with writings (the short list) and those without (the long list). All possibilities are still on the list, it's just that some are more likely to have healed the boy than others based upon its tendency to interact with humans. Does this mean you can write a book and claim it's from the Flying Spaghetti Monster and get it on the short list? Yes.
What would a scientist do next? Examine the writings seems a logical choice. If an SNC inspired/dictated some info to a human, it's reasonable to expect that writing to have some indication of it. If the writing has no SNC influence, we can't be sure it wasn't written by some guy falsely claiming to be a prophet of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There was a guy named Ezekiel, who claimed to be a prophet of God (Eze 1:1-3), who wrote in 586BC that God spoke to him about the city of Tyre and said, “And they shall plunder your riches, and make a prey of your merchandise. And they shall break down your walls and destroy your desirable houses. And they shall lay your stones and your timber and your dust in the midst of the water. And I will cause the noise of your songs to cease; and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. And I will make you like a shining rock. You shall be a place to spread nets on; you shall be built no more; for I Jehovah have spoken, says the Lord Jehovah.” (Eze 26:12-14)
So far, it’s just a claim like many others. Can it be shown that this prophesy came true?
In 332 BC (254 years later) Alexander the Great attacked the city of Tyre which had moved itself out onto an island when Nebuchadnezzar attacked them in 573BC. Since Alexander didn’t have a fleet and needed take that city, he took the ruins of the mainland Tyre (left behind by Nebuchadnezzar) and threw every stone into the sea to build a causeway for his army. He left behind only the flat bedrock the city was originally built on. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_%28332_BC%29)
Is there any way Ezekiel could have known what was going to happen 254 years later? It’s not likely, no. Therefore, Ezekiel’s SNC becomes one of the more likely to have healed the boy’s ear.
To me, this is where science leads if one applies it to something like a miracle. Unless, of course, I’ve made a non-scientific leap along the way, which I’d be happy to have someone point out.
DF