Metaphysical Naturalism is False

However, I would like him to know that we are not so much debating the Existence of God per se, but over Metaphysical Naturalism. Defintion of Metaphysical Naturalism: Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy which maintains that nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time. [1]Evolution and Metaphysical Naturalism:If Metaphysical naturalism is true, then our cognitive and functional abilities are the result of the evolutionary process, and there would be no way for that to be the standar of our knowledge since evolution is survival of the fittest. In other words, if we are the result of purely un-guided processes without an omnipotent being, then our senses can't be reliable to produce a standard of epistemology or how we come to know things as right or wrong. [2]Eugenie Scott, a Biologist and part of the NCSE(National Center for Science and Education) said "If Science is limited through natural processes, we are then constrained from making announcements about the supernatural wrold. We can neither say that there is, nor say that there is not a God or any other omnipotent power. .. .Statements about whether God exists, or interferes in the world, are just plain outside of our job. "So evolution alone can't be the source or standard for philosophy, or epistemology. Consequences of Naturalism: skeptics like Lawrence Krauss and J. B. S. Haldane took it that MN in the lab was evidence for atheism everywhere. The Schafersman quote above continues as follows: "Naturalism is a methodological necessity in the practice of science by scientists, and an ontological necessity for the understanding and credibility of science by scientists. The alternative to naturalism is supernaturalism; unless naturalism is true and supernaturalism false, empiricism–comprehending reality solely by sensory experience–is not sufficient to comprehend reality; rationalism–the use of logic in reasoning–is not sufficient to understand reality; and skepticism–the questioning and evaluation of one’s knowledge system and beliefs–is not sufficient to arrive at reliable knowledge of reality. Naturalism implies a unity and lawfulness in nature, a condition in which nature’s reality can be objectively understood, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be useless. But naturalism is not an assumption or presupposition on the part of scientists, a common claim of critics; it is, instead, a hypothesis that has been tested and repeatedly corroborated, and so has become reliable knowledge itself. "[4] Schafersman adds, "naturalism is a methodological necessity in the practice of science by scientists, and an ontological necessity for the understanding and credibility of science by scientists. "So they want us to believe that psychologically the term “naturalism” prejudices the mind toward naturalistic conclusions, not just naturalistic methodologies. [4]First Conclusion:I take it that, naturalims is not a proper methodlogical system philosophically or scientifically, but it's just a psychological notion. Acting as if something does not exist prejudices one toward believing that it does not exist. I now leave my opponent to respond:D Sources:[1] . http://www.reasonsforgod.org...;[2] Warrant and Proper Function By Alvin Plantinga John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy University of Notre Dame[3] Darwinism Defeated? : The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins[4] . http://www.thinkingchristian.net...;