Why not deism?

[Inqwizitor]

@Grandizer suggests that all logically possible worlds could be that explanation; but I think that goes beyond naturalism.

It's one alternative possible explanation, and I don't see how it must go beyond naturalism. It is possible for natural reality to be all there is and for its existence to be a logical/metaphysical necessity. You seem to be defining nature in a way that does not go beyond the observable subset of reality, but that doesn't necessarily make what's outside of this subset of reality spiritual or of a qualitatively different kind of reality.

The modal realist postulation should be seen as an extension of what we see, rather than a "beyond nature" kind of thing.

ETA: The point is you don't know whether nature is metaphysically contingent or not, and you shouldn't confidently make a statement like that.

What you seem to be defining as naturalism is what I've understood as monism: there is one kind of reality. Naturalism, as I understand it, is the belief that our space-time continuum — the physical phenomena and laws that we know in this world, as they are in location and sequence — are the extent of existence. If physics is the same in every logically possible world — that it's like physical copies of this universe with all logically possible outcomes in location and sequence — then I think we're equivocating logical and physical possibility. It is conceivable there are other worlds that have the same physics as ours, but a different space-time, like a set of mirrors of how things in our own world could have been. My understanding is that what constitutes nature in our world, the physical matter and laws, could logically be entirely different in other worlds. In that case, what is natural there is not natural here.

---

Its not inserting a god, but inserting a god!

Honestly, lol......?

Not inserting a god into nature, no.

You'd be pretty disappointed if the missing content of naturalism was chi, lol.

Like taoism? I don't think deism makes a claim about what the missing content is — that would be gnosticism — but only that nature is missing an explanation if it's all there is (a brute fact). God is the word to describe the missing content because it connotes a cause of nature, rather than a cause within nature. It also leaves room for the idea of purpose, as in final cause, in the Aristotelian sense. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arist...#FinCauDef

Stop with this "we don't know stuff" nonsense.  Demonstrate that you know anything.  Shit or get off the pot.  That's a reasonable request, right?  I've long wondered why people have such trouble with the notion of nature as metaphysically ultimate.  Especially the faithful.  Everything we point to as a reason for gods super-duperness is, ultimately, some facet of the natural universe.  You'd think that rubbing those two sticks together all these years would have started a fire by now, but no.

It's not nonsense, it's honesty. How do we know anything? We have generally agreed it's by observation and reasoning. We can go around in circles about justification, but we can know whether something is without knowing what it is. Dark matter is a natural example of this within our universe: we can know there is something else there, but we don't know what, yet. Either that, or we have to question and rearrange basic understanding of our physical knowledge. Even that ability to adjust conceptions of nature demonstrates the metaphysical contingency of natural existence.