And expanded on it before - and been doing it for way longer than that and you have continually evaded it as you have just done again? You have even and repeatedly used the term naturalistic methodology and said you accepted it - so were you lying when you said that or were you just saying something you didn't understand?
If you want to make a claim assuming something other than everything is naturalistic, then you need a methodology that would show how you establish that claim Your recent mess of a thread an individual declared dead then being found not to be dead, illustrates that you seem unable to even frame your claims coherently since if such 'resurrections' are indeed just natural then the resurrection of JC is just the same as me dropping a pen and it falling to the ground.
I use the word methodology to distinguish between a systematic approach where each step addresses the previous from philosophy.
I don't believe you have addressed the issue of methodology so I will for you.
The only satisfactory methodology anyone around here has shown to be completely coherent, effective and according to you yielding of evidence is science.
To then as you seem to to then dismiss non science......religion, reason, logic, philosophy renders you an empiricist of Vienna group proportions and we know how risible that little excursion was.
As far as the resurrection thread is concerned I said I got exactly what I wanted out of it and at the end of the day that's what counts.
I thought I said else where that I am going off words like natural and supernatural particularly (yes you've guessed it) ''How shamanically etc,etc,etc.
