[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?

[Filo]

Seems rather presumptuous.



I prefer "enlightened."

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Which has nothing to do with nothing in this case. There is proof for all naturalistic assertions and none for religious ones. There isn't even any logic or reason behind the latter.

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

Quite the opposite, in fact.

It is more than capable of drawing conclusions when there is evidence and intelligent, logical analysts.