[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

My point is that the existence of the "why" for natural events is a question for science because it involves the physical universe. A being behind the "why" would be like any other natural object or natural phenomenon, and thus subject to scientific inquiry.

Then we ARE saying the same thing - it's fair to presume that if God is behind all that has happened, science will root that out. Science will continue to figure out how God did what He did.

Not quite. A possibility is conjecture unless there is evidence, which turns the possibility into a probability. Proof would turn the probability into a fact.

How is that different from what I said?

Because any claim about "why" inevitably leads to the question of the intelligence's motive. This is where religion enters the whole distatesful realm of natural events being punishments from angry entities. That goes against the idea of looking at the natural world empirically and skeptically. It implies that humans should not be curious about how the universe works.

How God made things happen is important to know. Why He made them happen is equally important to know. Humans probably should be curious as to the hows - perhaps we can make our lives that much better. Humans should probably also know the whys - perhaps we can make our lives that much better!

I'm not sure of your point. Based on our current knowledge of our planet and of the universe, it is probable that life exists somewhere. While this is not proven or disproven, it simply means that the evidence favors the existence.

Statistically, you're right - it's likely. That, of course, is based upon the assumption that life can be created from the proper mix of chemicals and atmospheric conditions. If it can't (and, so far, we have not a single clue of a workable idea how that could happen), then the statistical probability drops drastically. My point - it's so likely, yet we can't see nor prove it, therefore it's pure conjecture, and there's nothing but FAITH to say it's likely.

How is it innate when many religions do not believe in single gods?

What people believe to be true is immaterial to what is actually true. The people in those religions, and the people without religion, still statistically are likely to have certain moral codes - regardless of belief system. Seems built into us.

It's possible that we evolved that way, as Dean Hamer as hypothesized.

Yes, it is. It's equally possible we were designed that way.

I wasn't talking about Christianity specifically. I was talking about the entire realm of mystical explanations for natural events.

Okay, for this portion of the discussion, I'm talking Christianity specifically.

Pointing out that a suggested possibility is an assumption doesn't dismiss the possibility.

Just not one for serious contemplation?

And Jesus' ideas about the human experience can be evaluated for value for one's own life experience.

I agree!