You claim that my position is based upon "blind assumptions" and that I "have no standard of belief." I find this too much of a hindrance to our debate to go on, so I hope to clear this matter up once in for all.
First of all, I have made it abundantly clear that I think that an active belief in anything unknowable is unjustifiable. I should go no further than this because that alone proves that I have at least some
standard for belief. You may not agree with it, but to say that I lack any is false and you should take it back. Seriously.
Secondly, and hopefully for the last time, there is nothing "blind" about observable premises. I am, however, humored by your terminology, given that I am very much appealing to things which we can, in fact, "see." It is your "supernatural"--which you must admit we have no means of observing in any critical sense--which is infinitely times more "blind" then the natural world we are bound too, seeing as we can't, in any sense, "see" it.
With that out of the way, I can't help but to comment on your continued invocation of the limits of the the natural world:
Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle
Yours are based upon a blind assumption that naturalism is the apogee of human knowledge and existence, and that naturalistic claims are the only valid means of understanding the meaning and purpose in our existence. Your argument only works within its own pre-determined boundaries, and its circularity is painfully obvious.
Your particularly use of the "boundaries" of the natural world is misleading since you ultimately cannot (and perhaps in principle are unable to) demonstrate that there is anything beyond its "city limits." Even going back to the big bang does nothing to positively (key word) affirm this. (And if it does, one has to wonder what one means by "anything" in a point where our understanding of space and time might not apply.)
As to my alleged question begging, I chuckle. There is, of course, nothing remotely circular about an argument which assumes as its premise that the world we are living in now--the natural world--is the only world worth basing a premise on. Surely it would seem silly for me to seriously consider the Nosgothic Realm of Soul Revear or the universe of Harry Potter.
It isn't enough for you to simply say that there are "limitations" to the natural world and therefore we should critically consider other worlds, since its limitations ultimately say nothing as to it's singularity or plurality. You could solve it in an instance, though, by demonstrating what exactly I am missing before appealing to it. But you, of course, cannot present any positive evidence for a supernatural, can you? (The answer is no.) Well, lucky for you, that I am more than willing to concede that your lack of positive evidence ultimately says nothing as to the objective existence of a supernatural. I just wish you would concede that your appealing to the so-called "boundaries" of the natural world does not, by itself, mean there is anything else worth considering, lest we consider the Nosgothic Realm (equal plausibility).
To sum it up:
(A) My premise of a fully natural world (and only a natural world) may ultimately turn out to be false, but it is in no sense of the word "blind." If anything, it is the most evident philosophy available.  Further, I submit that your "supernatural" is the real blind argument, given the fact that it is in no way observable.
(B) It isn't enough, for the purposes of this debate, to assert that there are limitations to the natural world. It being finite and all (in time if not space), that fact is patently obvious. But the invocation of a boundary means little, if anything, if you cannot positively demonstrate that there is anything specific on the other side of the fence.
Please address these two points directly because I fear that disparity between what you are arguing against and what is actually is are becoming too great in distance to be reconciled in another point-by-point reply. Where, exactly, is your beef?
 Note that to the extent that my premise is not fully exhaustive is addressed by my willingness to concede that it may be false. I am in no sense being dogmatic or fundamentalist in this respect, rather recognizing the intrinsic limitations of knowledge.