Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[SteveII]

Okay, this seems to be the point from your earliest post, so I will address that:

This is one big category error. The article uses the term 'explanation' and then complain that the natural theology arguments don't meet the requirements of a scientific explanation (including what makes a for a good scientific explanation).  Inductive premises and the deductive conclusions of natural theology infer God as a fundamental feature of reality--not a scientific explanation. While support for some of the premises contain lots of science, the conclusion is always a metaphysical explanation. As further evidence of a category error, every scientific explanation always has a 'why?' on the far side of them, requiring a further explanation--and so on...forever. The natural theology metaphysical explanations: God, is a far better stopping point to an infinite regress of 'whys?' because, really, there is no sense to ask 'why' once you get to God. 

I think that in order to think the natural theology arguments and pseudoscience ('pseudo' means false) claims are similar, you have to 1) not really understand the natural theology arguments themselves and the support for each premise--which can fill chapters in a book and 2) already assume the natural theology conclusions are not true --which is question begging:

1. Natural theology claims are false
2. Therefore they are similar to pseudoscience ('false' science) claims

Well, let's start there, then.  What do you mean, then, when you say that God is the best explanation for this or that fact of the natural world?

I mean that given the premises, 

1. It is unlikely there is a possible naturalistic explanation. Not because we haven't figured it out yet, but because there is some metaphysical reason that any naturalistic explanation will probably not be forthcoming.
2. Absent a naturalistic explanation (the inference from most of the premises), we ask what characteristics must a cause have? 
3. Upon examining the list of necessary characteristics for causes, we find them to sound a lot like God. 
4. A cumulative view of multiple arguments gives a broader array of God-like characteristics strengthening the whole enterprise.
5. Concluding God also has the benefit of being an explanatory ultimate (if God exists, he exists so necessarily)