“Science is built on the scientific method, not methodological naturalism. Naturalism is not science. Naturalism is a philosophy based on the logical conclusion that the laws of nature are sufficient to govern the world.”
You just don’t know what you are talking about. You’re confusing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is not a philosophy, it’s a philosophical assumption that underpins the very scientific method that you refer to.
Perhaps this will help you understand:
“Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.
However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.”
To quote Highlander, there can be only one.
“One can not define themselves.”
“No. It’s a legitimate question to ask about any person someone else claims exists, but never shows up to introduce themselves.”
No, it’s not. You are falsely assuming that God, if He did exist, would have some personality or psychological traits that we observe in humans. That’s classic anthropomorphism.
Here’s some more help for you:
“Anthropomorphism or personification is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities. ... In contrast to this, conventional Western science, as well as such religious doctrines as the Christian Great Chain of Being propound the opposite, anthropocentric belief that animals, plants and non-living things, unlike humans, lack spiritual and mental attributes, immortal souls, and anything other than relatively limited awareness.”
The scientific method requires no assumptions. The writer of this screed confuses conclusions with prior assumptions.
"...essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.
These claims stand w/o evidence. The scientific method requires evidence.
"To quote Highlander, there can be only one."
What is this man's evidence? Why isn't muhumed's character the one?
Re: One can not define themselves.
" More anthropomorphism.
Not. A definition is a blueprint for form and function, or essence of something. It's a logical conclusion that one can not draw up a blueprint for their form and function prior to their existence. No "human qualities" were attributed, or considered to draw hte conclusion.
Re: No. Its a legitimate question to ask about any person someone else claims exists, but never shows up to introduce themselves.
"No, its not. You are falsely assuming that God, if He did exist, would have some personality or psychological traits that we observe in humans. Thats classic anthropomorphism.
I assumed nothing. The fact that any intelligent sentient, rational being has a personality is a conclusion based on the fact that they must be sentient rational machines. Sentience requires sensing of the surroundings, one's own machinery and to one's own thoughts. That is the nature of feelings and emotion. Without the sentience, their can be no interaction with the environment and no self awareness. ie. no personality. If there is no capacity for rational processing/thought, then likewise there can be no sentience. Sentient rational machines are persons, which must display the chacteristics of personality, because of the very functionality that is contained in their essence.
If some being chooses to always stay hidden, or simply appears to, then either the being doesn't exist, or there is some reason that he chooses to hide. His choice to hide and his reasons are quantifications of his outward personality. Consider the historical Baal for instance, he's either an inept cowardly nacissist, or he doesn't exist.