I will prove to you that God exists

[Deesse23]

Bullshit
They are committed to empiricism and falsifiability, stuff you dont bother with. You are committed mainly to logical fallacies and strawmen, q.e.d.

While not all scientists subscribe to naturalism, mainstream science operates under the framework of methodological naturalism, seeking natural explanations for phenomena, without considering supernatural or divine interventions.

Take your foot out of your mouth and wash it off for god's sake.

You asked AI for an answer, really!? Ok....From your link: Methodological naturalism is based on the scientific method, critical thinking, evidence, and falsifiability.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific...rspectives

At the core of modern scientific practice method is the idea that the value of a hypothesis, theory, or concept is best determined by its ability to make falsifiable predictions that one can test against empirical reality. This means that supernatural entities or concepts that are meaningless or logically contradictory cannot be included in a scientific hypothesis

"Redding" mine: Ergo, supernatural entities that arent meaningless or contradictory can.

I believe the universe was intentionally caused to exist by a being capable of doing so. I 'm a philosophical theist.

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws.

Lets have a look at the very next sentence from the Wikipedia article you quoted.

Some philosophical theists are persuaded of God's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument.

Philosophical theism has parallels with the 18th century philosophical view called Deism.


....

Philosophical theism conceives of nature as the result of purposive activity and so as an intelligible system open to human understanding, although possibly never completely understandable.

Bolding mine.
If you had read (which you obviously didnt) what Sheldon wrote here, you would have understood (which you are obviously incapable of or unwilling to) that your standard for believing a proposition is much lower than the one of people using the scientific method. These people, by the way, are called scientists*. Their methodology is based on skepticism, falsifiability and empiricism**. Yours is based on.....philosophical arguments and faith. Science, aka methodological  naturalism is in the business to demonstrate what ideas match reality, your flavor of Deism...isnt.

And now, please demonstrate why anyone should accept your proposition that
#1 a supreme being exists
#2 nature is a result of purposive activity
beyond "ipse dixit" and queuing up logical fallacies. Good luck. And no, im not gonna put my foot out of.... your ass.


* In colloquial terms: You are a philosopher who claims to have a better understanding of the universe than scientists, which is absurd. Since philosophy deals with ideas and arguments, while science deals with evidence. Philosophy deals with what could be true, and science with what we can currently demonstrate to be true. While its not impossible that the universe is fine tuned, there is no good empirical reason, based on evidence, to think so. Much less in your case, using one logical fallacy after the other.


** If your supreme being would be falsifiable instead of meaningless (or contradictory) and if nature being a result of purposive activity could have been established and not falsified (yet), then #1 and #2 could be part of a scientific theory.