supernatural cause

Thank you for the challenge. It is the first time I've debated this topic. First of all, I am definitely not a naturist. Oh, wait, you said naturalist. In that case we can debate. The Resolution I assume the resolution is "There must be something beyond nature." Naturalism means "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" and "the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world." http://en.wikipedia.org... I am not certain whether there is or is not something beyond nature, but I negate the resolution's claim that there must be something beyond nature. "Science limits its explanations for phenomena to natural explanations, a process known as methodological naturalism, and cannot consider supernatural explanations, as they cannot be investigated empirically. To explain something using natural causes and excluding supernatural causes is to naturalize it. To explain something as resulting from supernatural causes is to supernaturalize it." http://en.wikipedia.org... 1. Unexplained things need not be explained Thus, what makes a claim a supernatural one is that it cannot be tested. At any time, science has a certain set of knowledge that explains some things and does not explain other things. There are millions of scientists currently working to explain things now unexplained, so there are plenty of things in the unexplained category. Every one of the unexplained things could be given a supernatural explanation. For example, if we ask, "Why is there global warming?" a supernatural explanation is, "God wills it." Natural explanations include CO2 or sunspot cycles, or a combination of many natural causes. There are millions of natural events that we accept as being unexplained, and we further accept that scientists ought to try to explain them within the bounds of nature. There is no necessity to depart from that model to explain any particular unexplained thing. We are better off leaving unexplained things unexplained until they are explained. If some things can never be explained, so be it. 2. Supernatural explanations are really not explanations For any unexplained event, there are infinite number of supernatural explanations. For example, consider "Why did the Big Bang occur?" Supernatural explanations include "God willed it." Another supernatural explanation is "Haruhi Suzumiya, a school girl in an alternate universe, was bored and willed it to make something interesting happen." Or maybe it was Haruhi's brother Fred who did it. There is no way to tell. If any supernatural explanation could be empirically tested, then it wouldn't be a supernatural explanation. Because supernatural explanations cannot be empirically tested we cannot tell which supernatural explanation is correct, and hence they really explain nothing. 3. Natural explanations are always possible, even if unknown One current theory is that the Big Bang occurred as a consequence of the laws of nature in which Big Bang events recur periodically. The theory is that long after a Big Bang, the matter and energy in the universe become completely diffuse. At that point another Big Bang occurs. The claim is that the theory is testable because gravity waves from the previous Big Bang should be detectable. No, I don't understand the theory, but I accept the word of scientists who say it is possible. Physicist Stephen Hawking describes the plan of his recent book: "In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." http://www.amazon.com... That something can appear out of nothing is at thing point well established in science as quantum fluctuation. "Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle." http://universe-review.ca... This "makes no sense" in terms of our everyday experience, but it doesn't have to make sense in that way. All it must do is agree with the data that verifies the theory. The laws of nature need not be readily understandable to be true. If the equations are verified, that suffices. Summary None of what I have argued precludes the possibility of the supernatural. I am arguing only that there is no need for supernatural explanations, because we may always leave unexplained things unexplained. Do so admit the possibility of natural explanations. There is nothing established to be beyond the bounds of natural explanation. The resolution is negated.