…One of the strongest pieces of evidence for the falsity of Naturalism is Ontological Euclideanism (OE) which is a rational inference from Methodological Euclideanism (ME). ME observes that the truths of various geometries make no appeal to natural causes, which counts as strong evidence of OE, namely that natural causes are unnecessary. This is justified a posteriori by pointing out the great success of Euclideanism, even in its giving rise to non-Euclidean geometries…
Objection: Stop yer snark! You’re clearly trying to justify theology by comparing it to this nonsensical critique of Naturalism. But theology wants to posit causes of natural events whereas Euclideanism does not want to do so.
Response: (1) We give geometrical accounts of nature all the time. There is even a vast history of persons (Pythagoras, Galileo, Newton, Max Tegmark) who claim this is the only sort of account we can give of nature. (2) One and the same event allows for all three explanations, depending on how it is conceived. Considering the quantity of nature gives us one sort of math, considering other elements of it gives us theology.
Objection: But theology wants to consider nature as both natural and as caused: if it is natural, then methodological naturalism kicks in, and if it is not natural, then we cannot infer the supernatural from it. So the incoherence remains.
Response: If a man uses a hammer or a shotgun, there is no conceptual incoherence in saying both that the hammer is not a human being and that it is performing a human act, whether this is the charitable building of a hospice or the braining of a seal. Nature is supernatural in the same way that hammering is a human act.