07-15-2016, 10:30 PM
You've missed my point, though. The assumption that only naturalistic explanations can be allowed in the natural sciences is not scientifically-based; that statement is based on a person's precommitment to the philosophy of naturalism. How can you prove the validity and reliability of that assumption from the natural sciences, Sonny Tufts? You simply cannot do so without begging the question.
In the natural sciences, the principle of induction is used, that is, reasoning from past experiences to explain present and future phenomena or making inferences from particular cases to a general case. However, naturalism cannot account for the use of induction in the natural sciences because it always takes for granted causation without a rational reason for appealing to it, especially in a universe that is supposedly always evolving. In fact, atheist philosophers such as the 18th Century philosopher David Hume, denied causation on the grounds that whenever it is assumed, it is based on experience, which begs the question, causing one to reason circularly. Thus, Hume denied causation, and in so doing, he undermined the principle of induction, without which, natural science cannot be possible.
So, if one denies that supernatural explanations cannot be allowed in the natural sciences, then, ultimately, they are left with the alternative to reject the principle of induction. And if one rejects induction, then one cannot study the natural sciences. Naturalism (with its assumption that only naturalistic explanations can be allowed in the natural sciences) gives us no foundation to trust the laws in nature nor to appeal to the predictability of natural phenomena. The only way naturalists can be successful in the natural sciences, then, is to borrow assumptions about nature from supernaturalism, which in this case, is the Christian worldview.
When you say that appealing to supernatural explanations leaves us with no certainty about the predicting anything in nature, and then, for an example, question whether the sun might rise in the east tomorrow (because God made the sun and moon stand still once), you need to realize what you're assuming about God. In Scripture, God doesn't cause miracles to happen in nature arbitrarily, for He always has a revealed explanation of their use, which is to vindicate His messenger or His people as belonging to Himself before witnesses. Otherwise, we can accept the reliability of the laws of nature because they are established by an unchanging God. In fact, all of the scientists who established the scientific disciplines that we enjoy today were creationists, so God's use of miracles was no problem for them in their studies and successes in the natural sciences.