Replies

I think that if a person can demonstrate that there are such things (not necessarily God) that exist apart from being placed under a "microscope" of sorts, then it can set the stage for a more productive discussion on the questions you have asked.

How, I would ask, can a person "demonstrate" anything and not use what you term the "naturalist perspective"? The only alternative I can see is simply people arbitrarily agreeing to the truth of something. That, however, demonstrates nothing but the agreement, and certainly not the truth of the matter. For example, if someone says, "such-and-such is true because it says so in my holy book," that does not demonstrate the truth of the statement, even among the speaker's co-religionists.

What other possible way is there to "demonstrate" anything?

Perhaps the use of the word demonstrate was a poor choice. But, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, I would not categorize all truths that do not lend themselves to a naturalistic approach to be an "arbitrarily agreed" upon truths either.

Basic logic (modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.) truths alone are just ideas. That you can construct experiments to prove them does nothing to bring the ideas themselves into the realm of the physical. Nor are they temporal truths that are just arbitrarily agreed upon until consensus shifts the other direction. They are either true or they are false independent of consensus. Some truths are self evident. A>B and B>C thus A>C requires no further evidence to demonstrate the validity of the claim. Nor is it's truth contingent on the agreement of arbitrary number of people.

Also, while I may not subscribe to all of Descartes, his statement of "I think, therefore I am" alludes to a component of a mankind that exists that is of an immaterial nature.

Again, it comes down to what a person (perhaps arbitrarily) accepts as sufficient evidence. Why must the only way to answer the original question as to the existence of a "God" be through a naturalistic test if we cannot apply the same standard to man's identity or ideas that themselves are intrinsically true? It is a presupposition that "God" must first be the type of being that can only be observed naturally before his existence can be verified. Why must that be the paradigm?