Methodological Naturalism

[Erasmus00]

I've been reading some of the intelligent design arguments of late, and one that comes up over and over again is that evolutionary science is biased by what ID proponents call "methodological naturalism." They claim that science, which searches for only natural causes is missing the obvious "evidence" of design.

 

My question is for ID/creationist proponents. How else can science proceed other then by looking for natural causes? When is it ok to say "I don't know how this happens, it must have been God?" What methodology would ID replace this methodological naturalism with?

-Will

[Little Bang]

"I don't know how this happens, it must have been God?" -Will

 

Anyone who looks at an unkown and says this, does not have the ability to ask why.

It's ok to believe that some entity created the universe, but it is also ok for me to ask what created that entity.

[infamous]

Anyone who looks at an unkown and says this, does not have the ability to ask why.

It's ok to believe that some entity created the universe, but it is also ok for me to ask what created that entity.

All questions a man can ask are fair inquiries, it is the answers we recieve form others, that need sorted out by reasonable logic and empirical evidence.

[Qfwfq]

It's ok to believe that some entity created the universe, but it is also ok for me to ask what created that entity.

The Catholic answer is in the Profession of Faith (the Credo), which says generated and not created. This is understood as meaning that nothing created God.

[Boerseun]

Premise:

Nothing created 'God'.

'God' is omnipotent, and the creator of all things.

Any 'omnipotent' entity, must have infinite resources at its disposal, and be infinitely powerful to qualify as being 'omnipotent'

The only thing we know of with such vast resources at its disposal is the universe itself.

 

Conclusion:

Isn't it possible that the concept of 'God' is just an unsiphisticated reference to the Universe, and that God is the universe?