Not at all.
Imagine a hitherto explained phenomenon. Now invoke a deity to "explain" it. Do we really have a better grip on that phenomenon? No. We're just saying "God did it". That's not an explanation.
What we do have, though, is a whole range of other things to explain, such as the nature and existence of that deity - what kind of thing it is, how it interacts with the world, and so on - a deity that we've invoked merely to explain the phenomenon, and without any supporting or independently-testable reason.
That's not an efficient answer. It's a refusal to answer.
It's not the same as with black holes, which - as I explained - are predicted by a theory that is independently testable, and the existence of which is in itself independently testable in principle.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:34,
Share,
Reply)
"God did it" IS an explanation.
I accept that you reject that hypothesis - I do myself, but just because it is not our belief that does not negate its innate value.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 17:50,
Share,
Reply)
Innate value?
What currency are you using to value God?
It's an untestable position, just one of an infinite number of possible explanations for shit we don't understand yet.
If you ascribe value to something that by definition can never be tested (it's faith, you're not meant to prove it) and for which an infinite number of alternative variations exist, infinite dilution of your value system to worthlessness is the only logical conclusion.
(
chart cat has an itch, Sun 28 Nov 2010, 15:30,
Share,
Reply)