“What can we say about metaphysical naturalism? Again, I want to make two points.
# My arguments for the existence of God show that metaphysical naturalism is not true. There is a personal, transcendent reality beyond the physical universe.
# Secondly, I think that metaphysical naturalism is so contrary to reason and experience as to be absurd.
In the following arguments, the first premise in every case is taken from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rosenberg Dr. Rosenberg]’s own book.”

“In a word, metaphysical naturalism is absurd. Notice that my argument is not that it is unappealing. Rather, it is that metaphysical naturalism flies in the face of reason and experience and is therefore untenable.”

“Finally, the argument from personal existence - this is perhaps the coup de grace against naturalism:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not exist. He says there are no selves, there are no persons, no first-person perspectives.
# But, I do exist! I know this as certainly as I know anything. From which it follows:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“First is the argument from intentionality:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I cannot think about anything. That is because there are no intentional states.
# But I am thinking about naturalism. From which it follows,
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.
So, if you think that you ever think about anything you should conclude that naturalism is false.”

“Fifth is the argument from freedom:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not do anything freely. Everything is determined.
# But, I can freely agree or disagree with premise (1). From which it follows:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Second is the argument from meaning:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then no sentence has any meaning. And he says that all the sentences in his own book are in fact meaningless.
# But, premise (1) has meaning. We all understood it.
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Third is the argument from truth:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then there are no true sentences. That is because they are all meaningless.
# But, premise (1) is true. That is what the naturalist believes and asserts.
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Sixth is the argument from purpose:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not plan to do anything.
# But, I planned to come to tonight’s debate. That is why I am here. From which it follows:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Seventh is the argument from enduring:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not endure for two moments of time.
# But, I have been sitting here for more than a minute. If you think that you are the same person who walked into the room tonight then you should agree that:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“It is interesting to note that Newton was not impressed by Descartes' great argument for God's existence derived from the idea of a perfect Being, nor by other metaphysical arguments that we have mentioned; yet Newton's own arguments for God's existence from the uniformity and suitability of different parts of the universe would not have seemed like proofs to Descartes.”