***Despite agreeing that science doesn’t have the tools to investigate the supernatural, you still want it to accept it’s existence?***
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive... the supernatural can exist even though science does not have the tools to investigate it.
***You also want an area of study that only deals in the knowable do bring into it’s realm the unknowable?***
No.... I just want secular science to admit that the answer to some of the problems that have been heretofore insoluble may exist outside of nature.
Consider this, Natufian:
One of these statements is true as they are the only options available:
1. Matter/Energy do not exist.
2. Matter/Energy are eternal.
3. Matter/Energy spontaneously generated out of nothing.
4. Matter/Energy were created.
Option #1 is falsified by the Scientific Method.
Matter & Energy are observed everyday.
Option #2 is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As a universe, we are headed for heat death....the sun, for example, can not burn forever, it will eventually run out of fuel. If the universe were eternal, this would have happened already.
Secular science is all-in on the Big Bang theory anyway, admitting that there was a beginning and therefore the universe is not eternal.
Option #3 - Spontaneous generation is falsified by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (By natural processes, energy cannot be created or destroyed), The Law of the Conservation of Matter (By natural processes, matter cannot be created or destroyed) and the Law of Cause and Effect (every effect must have a greater and preexistent cause).
That leaves us with Option #4... that matter and energy were created. This does not violate any natural law and is the only available option we have left.
A Creator would by definition exist outside of his creation and the Laws of Nature point directly to a Creator.
Which brings me back to the original point that has you so angry. Naturalism is a philosophy. I’ll go further and say that it is an important one for learning about the natural world in which we live.
What I reject is this: “The answer to all of life’s questions can be found in the natural world.... now let’s study the natural world.” That is philosophical and can be refuted by using natural law itself.... I just did it above.
Here’s a quote from a Nobel Prize winning Harvard neurobiologist, George Wald:
“When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”
Secular science throws out the Creator before they look at the evidence....he just said it.
I’ll say once more......If my keys are in the kitchen and I refuse to look there, I’m never going to find them..... if the answer is a Creator and you refuse to look there, you are never going to find Him.
Incidentally, Natufian. I know the Creator. If you’d like to know him as well I can help you with that.
You're right, they're not mutually exclusive but if science doesn't have the tools to investigate something, they might as well be mutually exclusive.
"No.... I just want secular science to admit that the answer to some of the problems that have been heretofore insoluble may exist outside of nature."
They do. They just use a phrase you don't like. They say 'we don't know'.
"That leaves us with Option 4... that matter and energy were created."
There is an another option (maybe #5 in your eyes but which I think is merely a tweak to your #4), it goes like this...
...that matter and energy were created by a process that we as yet, do not understand.
If you want to fill that 'not understood space" with the supernatural, knock yourself out but don't start whining that other folk might find the intellectually more rigorous concept of 'I don't know' more than acceptable.
"Which brings me back to the original point that has you so angry. Naturalism is a philosophy.
Not sure where you get that idea from, I'm about as relaxed as I could be.
"What I reject is this: “The answer to all of life’s questions can be found in the natural world.... now let’s study the natural world.” That is philosophical and can be refuted by using natural law itself.... I just did it above."
Really, you refuted nothing. You merely filled in a gap with your own prejudice. I've asked you this several times without getting a response. What do you find so problematic with the concept of "I don't know".
"I’ll say once more......If my keys are in the kitchen and I refuse to look there, I’m never going to find them..... if the answer is a Creator and you refuse to look there, you are never going to find Him."
Here we go again. Science doesn't have the tools to detect the supernatural. However much you want science to find the keys in the kitchen, until you explain HOW they can do so, you'll never be successful. Can you do it?
"Incidentally, Natufian. I know the Creator. If you’d like to know him as well I can help you with that."
Thanks for the offer but unless you can use science to reveal this creator, I'll take a pass.