Biology Questions: What is wrong with Naturalism?

I personally would say the biggest belief of a naturalist that I find completely wrong and intangible is the belief that living organisms came from non-living organisms, or otherwise referred to as spontaneous generation. It cannot be proved that living matter can come from non-living matter. This belief not only strips us of purpose, but it would mean that everything, all the intricacies of this planet are all formed by accident, that emotions and feels were all generated by lifeless matter. To me, this seems completely impossible. The belief that all of this came about by accident, and continues to come about by accident takes more faith than the belief in an all-powerful creator in my perspective.

Secondly, naturalists state their views on macroevolution as facts when in reality it cannot be tested or proved. They place so much of their beliefs on chance, that we all came to being living, breathing, emotion-filled beings by CHANCE. They attempt to prove their views on macroevolution by using microevolution, something that is nowhere near proving macroevolution to be true, they are completely different and that is therefore unreliable.

Lastly, overall naturalism fails to provide a logical explanation for the origin of life and how it has sustained for so many years. The belief in naturalism discredits all forms of knowledge, logic, or emotions. How then can they explain sadness or cleverness. If it is merely an extension of the physical then it does not exist the way that we most often feel it. If one believes in the feelings or intuition that they have then they are in turn disproving naturalism.