Underseer
Contributor
This is mostly for information.
Naturalism is something that comes up frequently in apologetics discussions, so this is worth learning about and discussing.
One way or another, supernaturalism involves some kind of a priori claim. Because this is an uncomfortable admission, they try to twist it around and claim that we are the ones making an a priori claim.
Naturalism is just the null hypothesis unless and until they can prove supernaturalism, which they can't by the philosophical definition because supernatural things are not testable and not falsifiable. Arguments against naturalism necessarily involves either some kind of supernatural claim that must be accepted a priori, or a shifting the burden of proof fallacy (wherein we have to disprove supernaturalism).
Naturalism is something that comes up frequently in apologetics discussions, so this is worth learning about and discussing.
One way or another, supernaturalism involves some kind of a priori claim. Because this is an uncomfortable admission, they try to twist it around and claim that we are the ones making an a priori claim.
Naturalism is just the null hypothesis unless and until they can prove supernaturalism, which they can't by the philosophical definition because supernatural things are not testable and not falsifiable. Arguments against naturalism necessarily involves either some kind of supernatural claim that must be accepted a priori, or a shifting the burden of proof fallacy (wherein we have to disprove supernaturalism).
