BWhite's Objections to Methodological Naturalism

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@BWhite

No, MN starts with a conclusion- that of it has to be naturalistic processes- which is too vague to be useful.

Science cannot explain life via natural processes. It cannot explain life’s diversity via naturalistic processes. And it cannot explain nature via naturalistic processes

This is why I asked the following, above:

@Michael_Callen

Please tell me if I’m wrong or where I’m wrong about this.

1. Within MN, one cannot invoke God as a default or ad hoc cause.
2. Within MN, one could ( assuming a testable hypothesis were possible ) experimentally and empirically show God to be a cause.

I believe that many take this aspect of MN too far. I believe that it is the practice of invoking God as the solution where a material solution cannot be identified that is precluded by MN. Not the empirical verification or validity that God did something. This is why people here continue to demand of ID supporters that they “show us.”