Following on from the last post, in which I asked for summaries of the basic problems of naturalist views (hence the equals signs in the titles; I am aware that the terms cover many different sorts of philosophical views), I want to ask now:
In what specific ways does theism, broadly conceived, provide a more coherent and reliable philosophical view than naturalism, broadly conceived?
Really, I expect this question to be a gimme for theists. A slam dunk. I anticipate that the philosophically minded theists will be able to enumerate several critical issues where a theistic view provides a way more cogent and satisfying response than any of its atheist counterparts.
So, have at it.
