rational naturalism is impossible!

[bennyboy]

I am showing that according to logic, naturalism entails the denial of reason itself, which in turn leads us to a view of solipsism since we can't reason what is true and what is false. I have not once made a God of the gaps argument here. is this what you do? when you don't like a conclusion you accuse you opponent of a fallacy of no relevancy to what they're actually saying? if only you could be a little more honest.

I guess I read you wrong. I suppose those other threads where you asked about what evidence it would take to accept the God proposition, and this thread about naturalism, aka evidence, are completely unconnected.

Many apologies. Maybe I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. I suppose once you've established naturalism as logically unsupportable, you are not after all going to use that to discard "show me the evidence" questions and redefine what it means to fulfill the burden of proof. I suppose you have no intention to use the intrinsic agnosticism involved in accepting physical monist observations as "real" as an open door for other interpretations of reality-- like a Christian one, for example.

Again, my humble apologies. I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.