No, that's the fallacy of equivocation for equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. I figured you didn't know the difference.
"Of course that's only clear to people who remove the blinders of religion and actually observe reality rather than believe what they are told."
LOL! You don't even have enough sense to understand that you commit a logical fallacy in justifying your belief.
"I have the universe to show for it. Perhaps even a multiverse."
Fallacy on the one hand, 'a priori' assumptions on the other and not a clue in-between. You're a hoot.
"There is no fallacy there. All are scientific disciplines that rely on observation, data and proof."
Oh, there's a fallacy there alright. You assume that the existence of natural physical laws means that the natural world is all that exists (philosophical naturalism). That's a fallacy, always has been and always will be.
"There is no need to prove that which is self-evident."
Claiming that something is 'self-evident' is a philosophical argument. You admit philosophical naturalism even as you try to deny it.
"The only examples you will ever be able to proffer as counters to "philosophical naturalism" - aka reality - are things that you simply don't or can't understand."
That reality operates according to natural, physical laws doesn't mean that philosophical naturalism is true. That's a fallacy. Too bad they teach you what to think rather than how to think.
"And yet I seem to be far, far better at that than you."
You can't recognize fallacy at all. You commit it constantly and claim that you don't.
"No, it is based on the careful analysis of facts and the realization of how well they fit reality, how predictable they are and so on. Science, not dogma."
Science is the dogma of philosophical naturalism. All science assumes philosophical naturalism 'a priori'. It's not empirically-derived nor provable. Just a belief.
BTW, you just committed the fallacy of equivocation again by equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. But I'm sure you knew that since you are so much better at recognizing such things.
"Don't hold your breath. I don't feel the need to prove reality to the unenlightened or any other incorrigibles."
Oh I wasn't. I know that philosophical naturalism is a belief and not empirically provable. You couldn't do it if you tried. It's a philosophy, a belief and requires the use of fallacy to justify.
"Again, no. Face facts, man: religion is incapable of standing up under scrutiny. The stupid little fantasy is clearly a human fabrication and is just as clearly unworkable in the real world."
Clearly it is philosophical naturalism that can't stand up to scrutiny. You justify it w/ fallacy and claim it 'self-evident' (a philosophical belief), yet are unable to understand the problem.
"Virtually every time religion has ever took a scientific stand (the Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe, etc.) they have been proven embarrassingly wrong. "
Not as you think. The Bible claims the earth is 'hung upon nothing' and spoke of the 'circle of the earth' long before pagans (early naturalists) recognized such things. BTW, this is another philosophical argument. I thought you could prove philosophical naturalism? What's with all of the philosophical statements if you have proof?
"The evolution debate is just one more example of that."
Yes, it's one more example of assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. But I'm sure you knew that since you're so good at recognizing stuff like that...