RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 26, 2020 at 7:18 pm
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2020 at 7:20 pm by possibletarian.)
(May 26, 2020 at 6:49 pm)Belacqua Wrote: We can infer that if science finds an explanation, it will be a natural one. If we assume from this that nothing supernatural happens, we are begging the question. If we assume from this that there is nothing in the world science can't address, we are begging the question. Science finds natural explanation because that's what it can look for.
Exactly what question is being begged ?
We would need evidence that something beyond the natural existed before even proposing or suggesting anything outside of nature. We can't 'consider' a none~natural explanation till there is something to consider.
The problem we have is not so much why science seems unable to to answer questions about the supernatural, but that a none~natural explanation is considered at all.
Can you give a good reason to consider a none~natural explanation ?
'Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid'