Vlad,
I don't think a Thor-ist would be your kind of person Hillside. He was not a naturalist waiting for a natural explanation. That's just projecting a version of thee sen.
And another straw man. No-one suggested that he would have been “a naturalist waiting for a natural explanation”. He’d have been pretty much the opposite of that in fact – “Thor” was all the answer he needed, just as "God" is for you. And for the same reason - absence of an alternative explanation.
I on the other hand am a methodological naturalist and recognise that as a tool for analysing the material and er, that's it.
All very nice, but it says nothing about your basic mistake of thinking that the absence of a natural explanation implies that there must
therefore be a non-natural one.
It doesn’t.
You…
Why do I sense another straw man coming on?
… look upon methodological naturalism and see the key to all the reality there can possibly be. You are the romantic fool here... Hillside. You are the one in La La Land HO HO HO HE HE HE.
Bingo!
And you are a flat out liar of the first order, possibly pathologically so.
I’ve told you over and over again that I think no such thing, so why even bother lying about it again? What I
actually say (and have always said) is that naturalism/materialism provides a working explanatory model for the way the universe appears to be. That's it - no more, no less.
It tells you nothing whatever about conjectures concerning the non-natural/non-material that may or may not exist (whatever “exist” would mean in that context). Your problem though is that nor can anything else – so all you have is conjecture which, for reasons known only to yourself, you choose to reify on the back of a series of logically false arguments.
So do you fancy actually attempting to tackle your problem here, or is lying the only tactic you have left?
