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

[possibletarian]

I’m asking you how it could/would be falsified (by what method), and how that falsification could be demonstrated.

Earlier, I assumed that the proposition could be falsified in the normal way: by finding a counterexample. 

So if we found something that couldn't be explained by science, then we'd know that not everything can be explained by science. 

Now I see that promissory naturalism doesn't accept the existence of things that can't be explained by science. So I see that the proposition can't be falsified. 


There's a parallel to the example we were using in the thread about falsification. I gave the example of the Loch Ness monster. The statement, "no such monster exists" is falsifiable, because if you found the monster the statement would be falsified. But the statement "there is a monster" is not falsifiable because no matter how much we look and don't find a monster, True Believers can assert that we just haven't found it yet. (Obviously, the monster uses Jedi mind tricks like Alec Guiness in the first Star Wars. When the researchers find it, the monster waves its hand and says: "I am not the monster you're looking for.")

Likewise, we could line up a million questions unanswered by science, and the True Believers would say that we just haven't found the answer yet. But there absolutely has to be one. We just know it.

So I guess I changed my mind. The statement isn't falsifiable. 

Personally, I accept the possibility that something inexplicable to science might exist. Obviously, value statements and metaphysical statements are of this type, and there may be others. Some of them may be fundamental to how nature works. I acknowledge this is speculation. But I have to hold open the possibility that I don't know everything.

I never seen such a ridiculous reply,

Yes you would have to show or have good reason to believe something existed, and have some way of observing it before even beginning to ask or answer questions about it.

I suspect everyone here also accepts that some things may never be answered by science, they just don't make an unjustifiable leap to non-natural explanations.

Everyone here will also admit they don't know now or will ever know everything, to have something you cannot explain does not mean there is no explanation (there always is)  simply that you don't know it.

Now, perhaps you could tell us why in all these scenarios you consider a non~natural explanation ?

---

The only conclusion I can reach is that you need the supernatural to exist as more than a concept.

You are free to fantasize as you wish.

I guess it's easier to make up shit answers than to ask questions and find out the truth.

Maybe come back when you have found the truth, then explain it to us.
Perhaps you could give us the formula you are using to asses if a non~natural world exists and we could investigate ourselves.