Changes

:Sherlock Holmes in ''The Sign of the Four'' (''The Complete Sherlock Holmes'', Barnes & Noble p. 96)

:Sherlock Holmes in ''The Sign of the Four'' (''The Complete Sherlock Holmes'', Barnes & Noble p. 96)

In addition, Arthur Conan Doyle as Sherlock Holmes adduced roses as evidence of (Divine) Providence.

In addition, Arthur Conan Doyle as Sherlock Holmes adduced roses as evidence of (Divine) Providence.

:''Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes'', (1892) "This rose is an extra...an embellishment of life, not a condition of it."

:''Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes'', (1892) "This rose is an extra...an embellishment of life, not a condition of it."<blockquote>"Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things — our powers, our desires, our food — are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its colour are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers."</blockquote>

::"Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things — our powers, our desires, our food — are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its colour are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers."

:Sherlock Holmes in ''Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes'', "The Naval Treaty" (''The Complete Sherlock Holmes'', Barnes & Noble p. 426)</ref>

:Sherlock Holmes in ''Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes'', "The Naval Treaty" (''The Complete Sherlock Holmes'', Barnes & Noble p. 426)</ref>

All of these arguments in favor of the supernatural against the doctrine of philosophical naturalism are dismissed by philosophical naturalists as having no validity because of their insistence ''a priori'' that the natural world is all there is and that the supernatural cannot exist but is a product of the human [[Mind|imagination]]. However, instantly rejecting a (''supernaturalist'') theory merely because it [[Inductive reasoning|infers]]

All of these arguments in favor of the supernatural against the doctrine of philosophical naturalism are dismissed by philosophical naturalists as having no validity because of their insistence ''a priori'' that the natural world is all there is and that the supernatural cannot exist but is a product of the human [[Mind|imagination]]. However, instantly rejecting a (''supernaturalist'') theory merely because it [[Inductive reasoning|infers]]