Why Religious Proof Or Disproof Is Unimportant

[GodsRevolt]

The question is then: Can we truly know EVERYTHING?

Clearly, we can't, but I'm unsure what that has to do with the OP.

Boru

Here is what I am responding to from the OP:

And, given the track record or naturalism as an explicatory mechanism, it isn't reasonable to propose non-naturalistic explanations for things which we do not, as yet, understand.

This strikes me as the strongest support imaginable for non-theism. Until and unless theism can point to a phenomenon or group of phenomena for which no naturalistic explanation is possible, it leaves theism as an unreasonable belief.

The claim, as I understand what you are saying, is that naturalistic explanations have a track record of kind of "demystifying" supernatural claims. Following the patter that naturalistic explanations have shown, if we wait long enough all things will be explained though this natural method.

So the real question is, "Can we really know everything?" If there are some things that cannot be known for certain within the naturalistic method which you propose, then they MAY (notice: not 'must' only 'may') go on as being defined as supernatural.

You said that clearly we can't in response to my original question "Can we really know everything?" I'm curious on why you said that.