I post mostly messages and commentary about religion and politics, and the scary occasions when they collide.
I am a: Liberal, Green, Christian, Math teacher
Lover of Math, Philosophy, Animals, Civil Rights, and Arguments of all kinds.

30th October 2012


Anonymous said: Naturalism isn't a hypothesis by the way. It's the prevalent manner of explaining every phenomenon to date. Supernaturalism or god explains nothing. That is why presupposition is necessary in apologetics. It is a way of validating faith in a god that yields no evidence whatsoever.

Presupposition is necessary for Naturalism, too. It assumes that nothing supernatural exists without evidence that it must be so, and it assumes science will answer questions that it hasn’t yet. Now, read this carefully: If the theory we’re using is actually wrong, what reason would we have to believe that science, using that theory, will someday be able to answer the questions it doesn’t now? Or, how will we know that the answers we get are correct?

Naturalism has not explained every phenomenon to date. That is a fact. There are many who believe that belief in God does. So, again… why is Naturalism preferable?