Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[possibletarian]

Lol, yeah. He’s gonna have to explain exactly how one rules out a natural explanation for some phenomenon.

Does "he" refer to me here? 

If the subject were less emotional for people, I think it would be obvious how science would rule out something: through scientific research. That's really the only way science can do anything.

So suppose 1000 frog scientists from reputable universities did the research. They discovered that given the way frogs are put together, it is physically impossible for a frog to sing the soprano and bass parts of an Italian opera simultaneously. They all sign a letter saying that there is no natural explanation.

At that point someone who's committed to your unprovable metaphysical view would have to say that science is wrong, that anything we observe must be natural even if science tells us otherwise. This puts the unprovable metaphysics ahead of scientific consensus.

It's been stated very clearly on this thread. No matter what is observed, you've already concluded, before the research is done, what kind of conclusion you'll reach.

I'm not saying supernatural things go on. I am only saying that your metaphysical commitment, while unprovable, pre-determines what answers you will allow.

So suppose 1000 frog scientists from reputable universities did the research. They discovered that given the way frogs are put together, it is physically impossible for a frog to sing the soprano and bass parts of an Italian opera simultaneously. They all sign a letter saying that there is no natural explanation.

They would never sign a letter saying that, but they certainly would say there is no known explanation, to say there is no natural explanation would be a leap of faith, not science. And why on earth would they say 'Science is wrong? ' wouldn't they say that they had never observed this before ?

And it would help us immensely if you could list your reasons for jumping to a non-natural explanation as an alternative, or thinking it's even possible. (aside from a possible personal belief)

---

As I wrote yesterday, I'm fine with the idea that science can describe everything natural.

But we don't know that it can answer every question, but again if it fails to why invoke a non~natural agent or possibility ?

You want us to consider a non~natural world, but have failed to explain why we should actively do so.