Naturalism as an unsound and invalid worldview

The challenge from Sapient:

Now, you have said on numerous occasions that NP, which IS Logic, is the evaluator of worldviews...have you run this by NP / Logic? Would you be willing to do so? Just the worldview parts that influence how you view all the rest?

Let me invited you to start a new thread with your worldview statement, the truth statements that you accept and upon which your logic is based...and lets put them to the NP/Logic test. This will give you a great opportunity to plead your case, defunct mine, which is exactly the opposite...hey, who could ask for more.

Now, since you insist that NP and Logic are the same, I am going to use Logic, science, etc to evaluate your worldview...you can call it NP if you like. Fair enough?

So, I invite you to go for it. Make sure and deal with your view on the laws of the natural world such as the law of contingency, 2nd law of thermodynamics, origins, etc...ie cause and effect, necessary and sufficient causes, decay, and creation v evolution, information theory.

Naturalism deals with all of those so i am assuming you considered them, and the evidence available, in order to make a rational decision--right?

If you need me to send the precepts of naturalism to you I will. But, I hesitate in this regard as I don't want you to think I am setting you up for the fall that is coming.

I look forward to it, and thanks in advance for the forum.

It was not my intention to challenge your worldview. Something about "freedom of religion" comes to mind. However, I am entirely willing to defend my worldview as valid and logical. Since we cannot agree on the definition of NP, let's agree not to use it.

Starting with the definition of naturalism from Merriam-Webster:

 2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena —http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalism

Fist, a note on theories and the scientific method. The scientific does not prove anything to be "true" or "absolute." If the theory explains existing phenomena then it is a useful theory. If at some point the theory is shown to be incorrect then it will have to be modified or discarded. I purport that naturalism is a useful theory. I welcome anyone to disprove that naturalism is a valid theory in that sense.

Have fun!