(March 2, 2015 at 2:45 pm)YGninja Wrote: Its not the same with God, because i do not claim to even have the potential to understand the mechanics of God and his acts. However, if you want to attribute everything to naturalism, you are claiming the potential to understand everything. This is because You can only - in working effect - distinguish something natural from supernatural by quantifying it. If you don't believe you will ever be able to quantify it, what grounds do you assert naturalism? Assertion of naturalism heavily implies that the thing is quantifiable, quantifiability is dependent on human cognition.
You missed the point, which is that all claims, even supernatural ones, have to be understood through the lens of human cognition, because all knowledge we can gather must be understood in reference to human cognition. Your perception and claim that god exists cannot be evaluated outside of the problem of human perception, and due to this, your claim appears not only to suffer from that problem, it steps right in it.
After evaluating fanciful claims of invisible beings and divine paradise, we are left with nothing but a flawed tool(human brain) attempting to make sense of the world around it with unjustified conclusions.
Naturalism is asserted, because it is what is demonstrable. Failure to demonstrate means failure as a claim, and that is where the supernatural claims lie.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell