> I think there is a strawman in claiming atheists answer that "there is not a why". Again, "why" as in purpose, not "why" as in mechanisms. People don't ask "

> I think there is a strawman in claiming atheists answer that "there is not a why". Again, "why" as in purpose, not "why" as in mechanisms. People don't ask "Why did my kid drown?" to get an answer about the respiratory system or the importance of proper fencing around pools. I think science is a great way to explore the physical mechanisms of things. I think it has limits when complexity, observability, or reproducibility are concerned. > The theology doesn't even add any more meaning to the discussion, yet it orders us to stop looking. So I think the disconnect here is about what counts as rational reasoning. There's a different kind of logic not taught very often called abductive reasoning (1). It's not any kind of scientific method, but it's hardly irrational. In fact, it's more or less what juries do when they deliberate on charges. So there's more to explore outside the realm of testing hypotheses in laboratories. It's unverifiable in a scientific sense, but it's not a dead end or even the end of a discussion. For example, Isaiah 53 (2) was written by a Jew hundreds of years before Jesus was crucified, but it sounds a lot like a psalm about Christ written after his death. It's not scientifically verifiable whether it's a prophecy, coincidence, or misinterpretation, but it raises a lot of interesting questions that can be explored rationally. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning (2) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&versi...