[Filo]

That directly contradicts your previous assertion that There simply is no non-naturlalistic reality.

I'm sorry - that was sarcasm. I didn't think it needed the /sarc tag. . .

I understood your previous assertion to mean that everything is naturalistic, but perhaps I misunderstood?

You just missed the sarcasm. While we don't yet know the naturalistic explanation for all questions the fact that we've never seen a non-naturalistic answer lends substantial credibility to the assertion that all questions will have such an answer, if and when that answer is found.

In some instances, of course, since the events are in the past (evolution, origins of the universe, etc.) we'll be drawing conclusions based on reason and evidence rather than direct observation. . .

You now appear to be asserting that certain origins are supernatural.

I've seen absolutely no support for any such assertion. ;)

[Fichori]

“I'm sorry - that was sarcasm. I didn't think it needed the /sarc tag. . . ” [excerpt]

And I was ribbing you for giving a flippant and vulgar answer to a serious question.

“While we don't yet know the naturalistic explanation for all questions the fact that we've never seen a non-naturalistic answer …” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]

Seems rather presumptuous.

It would be more accurate to say that ‘you've never seen an answer that you acknowledged as non-naturalistic’.

“… lends substantial credibility to the assertion that all questions will have such an answer, if and when that answer is found.” [excerpt]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

“In some instances, of course, since the events are in the past (evolution, origins of the universe, etc.) we'll be drawing conclusions based on reason and evidence rather than direct observation. . .” [excerpt]

Are you saying that philosophical naturalism is scientifically useless for drawing conclusions about the unobservable?