Naturalism Begs the Question

Begging the question, for those who aren't already aware, is an informal
logical fallacy in which the arguer 'sneaks' his conclusion in as one of the
premises which support his conclusion.

Naturalism, begs the question by its very nature.
This is one of the reasons it is so difficult to sit down and have a truly
productive debate with many people who hold this view.

One side likes to posture as if they are objectively neutral,
but they are, in fact, not. They pit science against religion, declaring
religion as falsity based upon myth and fable and science as
the only begetter of truth. But this isn't science, this is scientism.

Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature
(as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe,
and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does,
it does not affect the natural universe.

So, in discussing historical events, such as the validity of the Gospels for
instance, we are already off to a poor beginning.
The naturalist presupposes that miracles cannot occur.
His argument against the existence of miracles might look like this.

1.) Nothing exists beyond the natural universe and the natural laws that guide it.
2.) The supernatural cannot be explained by the natural universe or natural laws.
3.) The supernatural does not exist.

See a problem here? The conclusion is just a negatively phrased
version of the first premise. The preceding logical argument might as well
have been written:

1.) The supernatural does not exist.
2.) The supernatural cannot be explained by the natural universe or natural laws.
3.) The supernatural does not exist.

The conclusion is the same statement as the first proposition; only worded
differently. Circular reasoning alone does not disprove the validity of an
argument. But it puts it in a severely compromised position.

If someone sincerely wishes to objectively weigh the validity of their worldview
against opposing ones, one must set aside such presupposing baggage at the door
and weigh the evidence as it stands.
Obviously we do not rely on supernatural explanations where a natural one
will do. We always check for a natural explanation first.

If my car refuses to start tomorrow morning, I probably won't assume
that angry fairies sabotaged my engine.
I'll check under the hood for mechanical failure.
Once evidence mounts to indicate a supernatural cause, however,
I should not avoid objectively examining all options merely because of a prior
obligation to my worldview.

In my opinion, a more humble approach is in order.
For me to assume that since I have never witnessed a miracle during my lifetime
(if that were indeed the case) that no miracles have ever occurred in the entire
history of the universe seems slightly rash and illogical.