<<Thus, I find it extremely misleading, and
frankly intellectually chauvinistic, to claim that supernaturalism
eliminates bias.>>
An unbiased view, that. ;-)
I still don't think you have proved your point. I agree with SJ wholeheartedly
that by "defining to exclude," Naturalism is perforce founded upon a bias.
Supernaturalism has no such defect.
You are mistaking conclusions with reasoning. Under your view, any conclusion
at odds with naturalism (e.g., supernatural alternatives) is "biased." One
could apply this line to any un-like conclusion, and thus it is clearly
self-refuting.
Under the reasoning PROCESS, however, defining to exclude is what
substantiates bias. And the supernaturalist doesn't do that in the reasoning
process. Ever.
<< I submit that the conclusion you come
to in your statement above, reflects a bias of supernaturalism. I also
remind you that your conclusion here is exactly the opposite of what
Augustine, Basil and Acquinas concluded.>>
Not so. The Van Tillian view of Augustine has been called into serious
question. And Aquinas held "exactly the opposite" view you suppose (see
"Treatise On Creation" Question XLV, Article 1). Gotta watch those
characterizations! (e.g., the Yandell/Johnson "woodshed" debate).
Jim