What about creation of the universe? Creation of man?
There is absolutely no evidence for either. There are mounds of evidence that both were the contingent results of random events. Neither was created. Sorry.
Merely to make the claim that "livre" is not the same word as book is useless. If you actually approached things at that level, there would be no point to communicating at all. One can easily find usages where 'book' does not mean 'livre' as in "book 'im, Dano" or booking wallpaper, making book, etc. However, in each case a perfectly clear and accepted translation exists. Due to language change "le livre" and "la livre" [from Farrell's example] are now pronounced the same, but are only the same word in the sense that "point" meaning a point of land; to indicate something by pointing; the intent of a conversation; and its other multiple meanings are also the same word.
The materialist hypothesis does have a completely coherent and testable set of answers explaining the origin of the universe and the origin of man. Are you stating that you are ignorant of them, or that you do not understand them, or do you have some coherent objection to them, that you would like to advance? If so, note that even should part or all of the materialist claim be negated, this does not automatically make the "god did it" claim true. It must be advanced and proven separately.
There will always be some uncertainty and more areas to investigate. We do not understand everything about sleep, as one example, but this hardly makes sleeping into a miraculous activity, which can only be explained by the actions of the god Morpheus.
For oppressive laws, you could examine the career of Anthony Comstock. My home state of Connecticut only legalized contraception in the 1960s, due to Catholic pressure. Catholic pressure still deprives many people of reproductive choice around the world. Religious hostility to free expression hardly needs examples. The last jailing for blasphemy in the US was in the 1890s. The laws against prostitution, homosexual acts, many of the sillier liquor control laws, and Sunday closing laws, all are solely religion based, and oppressive and discriminatory to anyone who is not a christian. The case of Islam hardly needs pointing out.
As for your list of the "unexplainable" to wit:
unexplained physical healings? why we fall in love? deaths of unknown causes? why stars become supernovae? Hopefully my examples are relevant - there seem to be plenty of experiences which are unexplainable.
We know that the immune system exists and that it works more effectively in some people at some times than in others at other times. Falling in love is actually almost completely a function of socio-economic status, class and culture.
You are completely confusing the various uses of "unexplained." I may not know how David Copperfield performs one of his illusions. If he is good at keeping his trade secrets, then the illusion is unexplained. This hardly makes it a miracle. The same applies to the tricks of wandering swamis and faquirs, who actually claim to be performing miracles. I know of some likely tricks that they are probably using, and am sure that the rest could be explained if one cared enough to investigate. When it comes to visions, weeping Madonnas, healings and the rest, the same criteria apply. Most cases simply do not provide enough information for anyone to make and informed comment. In the same way that UFO literally means "unidentified flying object" and sure, it was unidentified because the person may have had bad eyesight, mistook a bright planet, a satellite, or weather balloon for something else, lied, hallucinated, or was otherwise incorrect. Any of these explanations are more credible than something which violates natural laws which we have never observed to be violated in experimental conditions. So, no, none of your examples is worth anything. None speak to the matter at hand.
Do you acknowledge any Biblical content which validated/ invalidated by scientific method?
Its fairy tale about the creation contradicts all the evidence. The story of the flood is not supported by any evidence. Much of its history has no corroboration, other parts (JC's genealogy) are self-contradictory, indeed the same applies to the retelling of the stories in Kings by the same stories in Chronicles, often differently, likewise the two versions of the creation contradict each other, as do the various stories of the birth of JC and the death of the same. Some of its claims (such as those concerning population size, the size of armies, the wealth of Israel while building the temple, are considered by all responsible scholars to be wild exaggerations. Common sense and archaelogical evidence tell us that there were not that many people around at that time, nor that much gold. Likewise, it is foolish to accept that people once lived centuries long lives, or that all languages got their start when people were building a tower to get to the sky, and god changed their language from one to many to prevent this from happening. Do you really credit that fairy tale as historical truth?
This only goes into the ways in which the bible is untrue and unscientific, it is also cruel, inhumane, immoral, vicious, bigoted, antidemocratic, totalitarian, authoritarian, misogynist, pro-slavery, and in many other ways a barbaric and evil book.
-- To know that the Bible is the literature of a barbarous people, to know that it is uninspired, to be certain that the supernatural does not and cannot exist--all this is but the beginning of wisdom.--Robert G. Ingersoll / Greg Erwin, VP, Humanist Association of Canada