The scientific method, as currently accepted and practiced doesn't address anything but naturalistic causes and origins. If you want to submit that the scientific method is flawed and needs revised or replaced with something else, we can discuss that but I think it off topic for this thread.
[[If you want to submit that the scientific method is flawed and needs revised or replaced with something else, we can discuss that but I think it off topic for this thread. ]]
Why elsewhere? IF the info in this paper argues strongly agaisnt naturalism, then it’s highly appropriate to discuss it here- along with hte other impossibilities and far reaching probabilites suggested by TOE- ‘Accepted’ doesn’t mean ‘right’ as you well know
I don't see how the big bang theory, or the string theory or multverse theory as "currently accepted and practiced" are necessarily naturalistic, not at all.
When hot air cult apostles are out purposefully placing thermometers too close to jet engine exhausts at airports to collect data to support manmade global warming, it's plainly evident to see that scientific conclusions are not somehow immune to politics, ideology and somehow are always ultimately objective, via the so-called "peer review" process.