“The scientific method requires no assumptions. The writer of this screed confuses conclusions with prior assumptions.”
Every method requires assumptions. Every human intellectual endeavor is based on assumptions, and refusing to acknowledge them is not helpful to understanding the proper scope or application of those endeavors. Also, methodological naturalism cannot be a conclusion of the scientific method, since it would not be demonstrable through the scientific method, simply because you cannot prove a negative. Go ahead and try, I’ll be waiting.
“These claims stand w/o evidence. The scientific method requires evidence.”
Which is irrelevant, since those claims were about philosophical naturalism, which has does not stand or fall based on the scientific method. Moreover, the statement is from a summary description of a well known philosophy, not an attempt to prove or defend that philosophy, so expecting evidence or support for the statement is silly. If you want to examine the arguments in favor of philosophical naturalism, go out and read a book on the subject.
“What is this man’s evidence? Why isn’t muhumed’s character the one?”
I didn’t say his wasn’t. I intentionally did not answer that question in your previous post, because this isn’t a theological discussion, so I see no point in confusing the issue by descending into that. It would not be fruitful, but only serve to distract from the crux of the conversation, which is about your attempt to deny that methodological naturalism is a required assumption of the scientific method, and therefore the scientific method limits itself only to examining natural phenomena. I thought that, by quoting Highlander, you might take the hint that I was making a silly rejoinder to your equally silly attempts to drive the discussion into an only tangentially related direction.
“Not. A definition is a blueprint for form and function, or essence of something. It’s a logical conclusion that one can not draw up a blueprint for their form and function prior to their existence.”
Your very definition of “definition” is anthropomorphic as well as being self-serving. My original use of the word had nothing to do with a blueprint, but rather a description. A blueprint implies that the definition exists before the thing it describes, whereas it is much more common for the thing to exist before it is described, and of course, almost every definition in existence is created by men, to express our necessarily limited understanding of the things we are defining. Therefore, any human definition of a deity can only hope to be an incomplete and probably insufficient description. This is why I say that God defines himself, because only He would be able to do so in a truly accurate manner. We simply are not equipped with the tools to make more than a partial description of such a phenomenon.
“No “human qualities” were attributed, or considered to draw hte conclusion.”
By assuming that a God would conform to the limitations of humans, yes, you are ascribing human qualities to a deity, hence anthropomorphism.
“I assumed nothing. The fact that any intelligent sentient, rational being has a personality is a conclusion based on the fact that they must be sentient rational machines.”
How can you follow the one statement with the other? The second sentence is full of assumptions (all intelligent, sentient, rational beings will conform to your previous experience, sentient beings all have personalities, their personalities will be similar to human ones, they will be machines, etc). The fact that you don’t see the anthropomorphism fairly dripping from the statement demonstrates you are either very uncritical of your own thinking, or you simply don’t understand what anthropomorphic assumptions are. The rest of your “logic” following that statement is just more bad assumptions heaped on the previous ones, amounting to no useful information.
"and refusing to acknowledge them is not helpful to understanding the proper scope or application of those endeavors."
You are free to play with assumptions all you want, but you can not force them on, or into logical schemes that never contained them. The scientific method requires only that a hypothesis be formulated and then supported by hard evidence if it is to stand and become theory. There are no assumptions contained therein.
"Also, methodological naturalism cannot be a conclusion of the scientific method, since it would not be demonstrable through the scientific method, simply because you cannot prove a negative. Go ahead and try, Ill be waiting."
Proof only applies to mathematics, all other claims, contentions, ect... are supported by evidence. the measure of truth is the measure of the evidence and ogic supporting it.
I said methodological naturalism is based on conclusions from the scientific method. The main one is that the laws of physics are consistent and sufficient to govern the world. No external arbitrary fifth force is needed. The conclusion is based on all the reproducible evidence obtained to date. To date, there is no to refute that conclusion. The god of the gaps is that arbitrary and necessary fifth force that is never observed. Thus methodological naturalism is based on conclusions drawn using the scientific method, but nevertheless phil nat is not science, nor does science assume it.
Re: Why isnt muhumeds character the one?
" I didnt say his wasnt. I intentionally did not answer that question in your previous post, because this isnt a theological discussion, so I see no point in confusing the issue by descending into that.
The topic of the thread is "The Challenge". The challenge to what- theology. In particular, you brought up supernatural causal relationships, which are the fruits of theology. A scientist can determine the probability that muhumed's character is real. The scientist does not assume, he looks at the evidence for the contention. If there's no evidence, then the calculation of probability for the hypothesis, contention, claim is zero. Then the best that can be said about the "person" the theologal claim refers to is that he's hiding. One can and should also judge what is claimed about the claimed diety. Logic and the scientific method apply.
"Your very definition of definition is anthropomorphic as well as being self-serving. My original use of the word had nothing to do with a blueprint, but rather a description.
Nonsense, a definition is required to be the simplest accurate, precise blueprint for a thing, or concept as possible. It is an embodiment of the essence, not a mere arbitrary description.
"you simply dont understand what anthropomorphic assumptions are.
You don't understand science, nor what a sentient rational beings are. There's no anthropromorphism in the science of sentient rational machines. In order to understand that, you'll have to drop the assumption and anthropromorphic nonsense and learn some science.