I’m interested in debating this, as I consider the claim as it stands to be truthful. In support of the claim, however, I would like to stress the significance of the word ‘resolved’ as used above. Used as a verb, it is usually defined as ‘to come to a determination; to make up one's mind’, but I think it makes the statement clearer if ‘resolved’ is taken as meaning ‘to establish the truth’ (i.e. confirm, settle, prove).No phenomena previously attributed to a god has been resolved in favour of a god rather than natural phenomena.
Therefore, the scope of this debate topic must necessarily exclude unresolved natural phenomena, i.e. ‘things for which there is currently no single, accepted scientific explanation’. An obvious example would be the beginning of the universe: something which science would accept as being currently ‘unresolved’ (although not necessarily unresolvable in the future). On the other hand, the theory of plate tectonics is a ‘single, accepted scientific explanation’ of why we see similar fossil strata on separate coastlines, and find seashells on mountain tops.
So, rewritten slightly, the question for debate is:
“No observed natural phenomena previously attributed to a god has been proven to be explained in favour of a god rather than by natural phenomena.�
