Vlad,
You keep avoiding the first sentence of the article where it defines Philosophical Naturalism.
Why do you lie so much do you think? I'm the one who says you need to look at the thing in the round - rather than just quote mine the bit that suits you, look at the qualifiers and clarifications that follow.
Why can you not bring yourself to quote it?
Becasue that would be quote mining.
Well we know the answer to that.
One of us does anyway.
Show us all you are not trying to handwave by quoting it here and now.
That's not what "handwaving" means, and here it is:
"
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.[2]"
Naturalism can intuitively be separated into an ontological and a methodological component."[3] "Ontological" refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Some philosophers equate naturalism with materialism. For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[4]
Assuming naturalism in working methods as the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, is called methodological naturalism.[5] The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm.
With the exception of pantheists—who believe that Nature and God are one and the same thing—theists challenge the idea that nature contains all of reality. According to some theists, natural laws may be viewed as so-called secondary causes of god(s).
In the 20th century, Willard Van Orman Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers argued that the success of naturalism in science meant that scientific methods should also be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy are said to form a continuum, according to this view."
There's more to follow that falsifies you too, but there's more than enough here to do the job.
So what do we know now then?
First, that what you actually meant all this time was "
metaphysical naturalism" (sometimes also referred to as "extreme physicalism").
Second, that metaphysical naturalism (as it's properly called) isn't problematic "because methodological naturalism doesn't demonstrate it" as you endlessly assert. The arguments for it don't rely on methodological naturalism at all, and methodological naturalism takes no position on it - it just treats it as an "as if" as a working assumption.
Third, that no-one here (least of all me) subscribes to metaphysical naturalism in any case - it always was and continues to be a huge straw man of your own devising in which you're so heavily invested that you can't find a way to back out of it despite the dishonesty that requires.
What does that say about you do you think?
