You are spouting off typical telelogical and cosmological arguments. I am going to use another example:
You see a tree and say "It is so complex so God must have made it!"
I say, "False it was created by the letter A because the letter A is the first letter of our alphabet. You see the letter A has always existed but it was not officially recognized as existing until we invented our alphabet. Therefore A being the first letter and also being the first letter in the world Alpha which means first/dominant, A is the creator of the tree."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now prove to me that A did not create the tree. I will go ahead and tell you that you cannot PROVE beyond ANY DOUBT that A did not create the tree. NO MATTER WHAT you try I can keep ranting/redefining A until there is absolutely nothing you can do to prove/disprove anything about it.
If you can understand why you should NOT accept that the letter A created everything you will understand why the arguments for God's existence EXPLAIN NOTHING but are rather just statements. This is not about what you feel or the fact that you cannot explain something. This is about WHAT YOU CAN PROVE. You cannot prove God and you have already admitted this but you state that there reasonable reasons to believe in such an entity.
The problem is your statements of what makes God reasonable to believe in all stem from the same idea. You see something that you cannot think of another explanation for so you insert God in to fill the gap. I have never seen the ontological, cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments do ANYTHING besides say "LOOK AT THAT.... IT IS AMAZING!... GODDIDIT." The only difference is some make it sound a lot more articulate than that. If you do not have hard evidence for God then admit it and be intellectually honest.
There are people who believe in higher powers that openly admit they can't prove it to anyone. I may not agree with those people's ideas but at least they are not trying to dance around the issue. The problem with you asking for proof of naturalism is naturalism is an observation that has been made based on repeated experiences. You experience naturalism everyday and in fact you live your life under some assumptions of naturalism.
Here are a few examples of you living your life under the assumption of naturalistic principles:
1) YOU have to ingest water and other nutrients to survive
2) YOU have to respect the laws of gravity or get severely injured/die
3) YOU have to watch out for yourself around animals/other people or possibly endure harm/death
4) YOU have to ultimately take care of yourself or be taken care of by OTHER PEOPLE
::::
Now the difference is you assume that there is some "invisible hand" (for all you economics people out there) guiding the process. The problem is I don't see how you can prove the invisible hand's influence at all. Everyone can certainly see the NATURAL explanation for why those four points I mentioned are true. Whether or not there is something else other than what is proposed inside of naturalism is up for debate. However you live/operate under many naturalistic assumptions every single day.
If you don't think those four points are necessary then prove that you could survive by not doing any of the four things and just asking God to take care of it for you. The point is you HAVE to do things in this universe in order to survive or someone must do them for you. Any time God is claimed to work in our world it is either attribution OR someone else is doing something and claims/is told that God guided their actions. It is like a prayer I used to hear in church "God guide the hand of the doctors that are operating on so and so".
Naturalism is false? Then give up medicine, science, technology, food, breathing, and everything else that is a part of our "natural" world. Naturalism may not be COMPLETELY true but is demonstrability mostly true. Whether or not there is that invisible hand is again a topic of debate which will probably never be solved. You already accept most of naturalism, people who don't believe in God just go the rest of the way or assume that the percent of uncertainty is impossible to determine.
You see a tree and say "It is so complex so God must have made it!"
I say, "False it was created by the letter A because the letter A is the first letter of our alphabet. You see the letter A has always existed but it was not officially recognized as existing until we invented our alphabet. Therefore A being the first letter and also being the first letter in the world Alpha which means first/dominant, A is the creator of the tree."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now prove to me that A did not create the tree. I will go ahead and tell you that you cannot PROVE beyond ANY DOUBT that A did not create the tree. NO MATTER WHAT you try I can keep ranting/redefining A until there is absolutely nothing you can do to prove/disprove anything about it.
If you can understand why you should NOT accept that the letter A created everything you will understand why the arguments for God's existence EXPLAIN NOTHING but are rather just statements. This is not about what you feel or the fact that you cannot explain something. This is about WHAT YOU CAN PROVE. You cannot prove God and you have already admitted this but you state that there reasonable reasons to believe in such an entity.
The problem is your statements of what makes God reasonable to believe in all stem from the same idea. You see something that you cannot think of another explanation for so you insert God in to fill the gap. I have never seen the ontological, cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments do ANYTHING besides say "LOOK AT THAT.... IT IS AMAZING!... GODDIDIT." The only difference is some make it sound a lot more articulate than that. If you do not have hard evidence for God then admit it and be intellectually honest.
There are people who believe in higher powers that openly admit they can't prove it to anyone. I may not agree with those people's ideas but at least they are not trying to dance around the issue. The problem with you asking for proof of naturalism is naturalism is an observation that has been made based on repeated experiences. You experience naturalism everyday and in fact you live your life under some assumptions of naturalism.
Here are a few examples of you living your life under the assumption of naturalistic principles:
1) YOU have to ingest water and other nutrients to survive
2) YOU have to respect the laws of gravity or get severely injured/die
3) YOU have to watch out for yourself around animals/other people or possibly endure harm/death
4) YOU have to ultimately take care of yourself or be taken care of by OTHER PEOPLE
::::
Now the difference is you assume that there is some "invisible hand" (for all you economics people out there) guiding the process. The problem is I don't see how you can prove the invisible hand's influence at all. Everyone can certainly see the NATURAL explanation for why those four points I mentioned are true. Whether or not there is something else other than what is proposed inside of naturalism is up for debate. However you live/operate under many naturalistic assumptions every single day.
If you don't think those four points are necessary then prove that you could survive by not doing any of the four things and just asking God to take care of it for you. The point is you HAVE to do things in this universe in order to survive or someone must do them for you. Any time God is claimed to work in our world it is either attribution OR someone else is doing something and claims/is told that God guided their actions. It is like a prayer I used to hear in church "God guide the hand of the doctors that are operating on so and so".
Naturalism is false? Then give up medicine, science, technology, food, breathing, and everything else that is a part of our "natural" world. Naturalism may not be COMPLETELY true but is demonstrability mostly true. Whether or not there is that invisible hand is again a topic of debate which will probably never be solved. You already accept most of naturalism, people who don't believe in God just go the rest of the way or assume that the percent of uncertainty is impossible to determine.
