RE: Why not deism?
October 1, 2019 at 10:14 am
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2019 at 10:15 am by GrandizerII.)
(September 30, 2019 at 10:08 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote:(September 30, 2019 at 9:43 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Naturalism validated itself with a unique track record that affords increased probability that its apparent intellectual leaps really coincides with an existent if as yet not fully articulated foundation in reality. Other approaches do not provide anything to suggest any of their leaps are nothing more than totally unfounded wishful fancy.
Naturalism works, absolutely. No argument there. It's when we say that naturalism is a complete metaphysical explanation that we encounter some issues with it.
If you're going to keep going with this narrative, then why not admit that theism as a complete metaphysical explanation also encounters some issues with it? Theism is extraneous and raises more questions than it answers in addition to the fact that [traditional] theism doesn't sufficiently answer such metaphysical questions as why this world rather than another. Based on what do know and observe, it's just easier for rational atheists to stick provisionally to naturalism until/unless some clear and conclusive answer comes along.
