Nonsense, you do this regularly. You believe the word of man for any Biblical statement that you don't personallyagree with.
" I've seen no evidence, certainly not from you, that any scientific theory requires your "philosophical naturalism" as its basis. So I'm guessing you're just projecting your own state of mind onto the theories of science. Do you have evidence to support your claim? If not, why should I believe it?"
Rubbish, the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution are clearly based on an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You simply refuse to admit it.
"Philosophical naturalism is the religion of SOME people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs, BUT NOT ALL. Christianity is the religion of many people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs. And your problem with this is what?"
Science, however is clearly based on philosophical naturalism. Were it not, you could easily demonstrate it. You simply can't.
"A minuscule minority of Christians are YEC's."
Those are the only people who meet the definition you proposed that I responded to as YEC's.
"I know of no scientific theory requiring "philosophical naturalism" as its basis. Perhaps you could provide "proof" that at least some are?"
I have been providing you with the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution as examples of scientific theories based on philosophical naturalism for weeks now.
"So you claim, but as in everything else you assert, provide us no evidence. Makes me wonder about your "critical thinking skills.""
So, you admit that I have been providing examples of the very theories you ignored above, you just wish to claim that there is no 'evidence' that they are based on philosophical naturalism. Since they are unobservable, they clearly cannot be based on methodological naturalism and are therefore based on philosophical naturalism. You just dishonestly refuse to admit it.
"Nonsense. You are merely denying common accepted word definitions."
Nonsense. You are merely invoking your usual deception of 'truth by definition'.
"I said no such thing."
You never say anything.
Not true.
"Rubbish, the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution are clearly based on an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You simply refuse to admit it."
Baloney.
"Science, however is clearly based on philosophical naturalism. Were it not, you could easily demonstrate it. You simply can't."
And your evidence demonstrating your claim is what?
"I have been providing you with the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution as examples of scientific theories based on philosophical naturalism for weeks now."
You have provided no evidence or explanation to support your claims.
"So, you admit that I have been providing examples of the very theories you ignored above, you just wish to claim that there is no 'evidence' that they are based on philosophical naturalism. Since they are unobservable, they clearly cannot be based on methodological naturalism and are therefore based on philosophical naturalism. You just dishonestly refuse to admit it."
Rubbish. You've explained or provided evidence of nothing. The definition of "methodological naturalism" does not require a theory be "observable." It only requires that a theory is based on natural causes for natural occurrances.
"You are merely invoking your usual deception of 'truth by definition'."
No.