Science assumes naturalism

Diogenes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 9:22 pm Yes indeed, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim; i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.
Since this is an extraordinary claim, a claim that defies everything we know of science and the physical laws of the universe, we do indeed circle back to the issue of inerrancy because to make such an otherwise absurd, anti-knowledge claim, the words of ‘scripture’ must come from a god AND be inerrant. On what other authority can an otherwise crazy claim be justified?

I’m not claiming science can explain the resurrection. It’s a supernatural event so there is no physical law of the universe that can explain it.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science, by definition, only deals with naturalistic explanations. It assumes that only the natural world exists and only naturalistic explanations can be used. It says nothing about supernatural causation and if it can or cannot happen. So, it is basically stacking the deck to impose science to be able to explain the resurrection. It is saying, “You cannot use a supernatural explanation to explain the resurrection. The resurrection did not have a natural explanation. Therefore the resurrection did not happen.” The fundamental flaw is the assumption that a supernatural explanation cannot happen.

Now, skeptics might balk at using a supernatural explanation to explain things since we live in the modern times and everything has been explained by naturalistic causes. Actually, scientists have already entered into the world of the “extranatural” with string theory, multiverse, and the big bang theory — extra dimensions are posited, a multitude of undetectable universes are posited, and an unknown causation of our universe that is expanding into another dimension.