leroy said:
No LEROY, stop.
You really don't know what you're talking about, so for once in your life, start asking questions to understand first, then have a discussion about it.
leroy said:
No, the point of methodological naturalism is that one should only seek observable, empirical, detectable explanations for phenomenon. Appealing to invisible gnomes with a penchant for pulling shit down can never be an appropriate claim within the context of methodological naturalism.
However, methodological naturalism makes no claims that there are or aren't what we might call supernatural events because, as I've already educated you, it's a tool, not a philosophy.
To extend the analogy, let's use a specific tool - a machine.
Put the empirical, observable, hard data into the Methodological Naturalism Machine, and it starts computing, pushing out some models that can explain that data.
Don't have empirical, observable, hard data? Then the machine does nothing.
What's missing from the side you are arguing for, those claiming supernatural events, is the empirical, observable, hard data - you have none - and consequently methodological naturalism cannot even be used because there's nothing there for it to work on.
So your misunderstanding is about where in the process supernatural claims get rejected. It's not the output of the methodological naturalism machine that sieves off unwanted supernatural claims, it's that there's no input in the first place.
As with any machine, if it runs on petroleum, then it doesn't matter how much water you put in, not how lovely tasting that water is, how pure and free of heavy metals it is, it just doesn't matter that water is the absolute essence of life because the machine cannot run without the required fuel.
leroy said:
Again, LEROY, you just show you're far out of your depth in so many ways.
If you think you start explaining before evaluating the evidence, you're doing ANY form of truth acquisition wrong.
In reality, this is exactly your position. You start with a ready-made, fit for all purpose explanation, then you evaluate the evidence in terms of it. There's no evidence at the start to produce the explanation you started with, it's an assumption, a dogma, and antithetical to any realistic inquiry into truth.
And what is the evidence? Well, it's not your God because, as we all know, your God isn't evident not actually being corporeal or directly observable. So the very thing you believe as an assumption is a thing not actually made evident to you. Rather, you now have the task of corralling all evidence in support of it because it is not evident. If you're wrong in that assumption, then all of your treatment of evidence is wrong, flawed by that faulty assumption.
Methodological naturalism, on the contrary, is not trying to prove itself. What it's trying to do is explain what factually is there, shit that's real and shit that happens. The data starts the process: X exists, Y occurs, Z seems to happen when I do this.... in each instance, there is something factually, undeniably there to be explained, an empirical quantity, and thus explanation of it proceeds.
Of course, if methodological naturalism were to have evidence put in that would require a resulting supernatural explanation, then it would fail, but that's hardly its fault any more than a hammer would fail at cleaning glass. But were such evidence to exist, that wouldn't suddenly mean that methodological naturalism has no utility because it so obviously does. All the array of modern world infrastructure around you from internets to aeroplanes were achieved via methodological naturalism, and were the supernatural to exist, it wouldn't change the fact that these things work. It would still be a useful tool in the set.
In fact, many researchers try to use methodological naturalism to assess supernatural claims - there are even dozens of journals dedicated to it, i.e. parapsychology. Naturally, they don't actually end up being able to successfully corroborate their predictions arising from explanations appealing to the supernatural.
In reality, whatever set of ideas that perfectly encapsulates the sum of human ideas known as 'the supernatural' probably doesn't exist at all in any regard. It's probably explicable solely via human psychology, but again, such explanations are not the remit of methodological naturalism.
leroy said:
Again, you clearly don't understand anything you're talking about.
Firstly, if your grandfather resurrected from the dead, then there'd be actual physical, empirical evidence from which to produce explanations. So in this way it's wholly unlike the preponderance of supernatural claims because there's actually something really there to study.
Secondly, you leap to a faulty assumption: a miracle? No, that doesn't stand to reason even if your God exists exactly as you believe because there could be countless other forces at work you are wholly ignorant of, or there could even be a wholly natural explanation. You don't know a priori, but the problem is that you believe you know, you convince yourself that everything proves your assumption. That's why you're so mistaken in life.
Thirdly, when you say 'miracle' - what kind of explanation is that really? What does it actually mean? Are you saying 'God did it'? Then in terms of an explanation as to why someone has resurrected, it's pretty empty. How exactly did God do that? Do you know? Do you know anything about the manner in which God did it? Your explanation turns out to be no explanation at all, and certainly no greater explanatory power than if someone just said 'well it happened, so it did.'
Fourthly, what's laughable is that you have to employ an imaginary scenario where you offer evidence.... because you can't actually offer any evidence of the supernatural.
In essence, you've just shown why your approach is so weak. You start with an assumption then pretend that everything conforms to it and you're too lazy ever to reach beyond that uninspected assumption.
But you have nothing resulting from your approach whatsoever - no discoveries are made with your approach, no medicines, no new ways of conveying people, you don't find exoplanets with your approach, or cure diseases.... your approach seems never to have offered any utility at all.
It's almost as if your approach is wholly the figment of your imagination, and has no relationship with reality at all.
