***It’s what is testable and provable, not what one believes.***
I have a very simple point, Fuzz. You BELIEVE that there are natural answers for everything. This is philosophical.. it cannot be tested.
Because naturalism is your philosophical underpinning you are not willing to entertain alternative explanations even though the laws of nature themselves refute that philosophy.
You’re standing on that ground, Fuzz. You have every right to do that, just understand that it is philosophical.
“You BELIEVE that there are natural answers for everything. This is philosophical.. it cannot be tested.”
No. I know that there are no tests for supernatural phenomena. We both agree that natural explanations are the only ones that can be tested. Therefore science can only be tasked with testing natural explanations.
“Because naturalism is your philosophical underpinning you are not willing to entertain alternative explanations even though the laws of nature themselves refute that philosophy.”
It’s not what I personally am willing or able to entertain, but what can be tested and proven to be correct. The supernatural explanations you are willing to accept are philosophical. Not having a scientific testable explanation is not a philosophical argument. It’s merely saying that we don’t know.