"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.
“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.”
Of course there are assumptions required by the scientific method, just as there are axioms in mathematics that one must accept without proof. The requirements you state are the process of the scientific method, which are completely different from the underpinning assumptions. You can pretend the assumptions are not there, but that does not make them go away, it merely reveals your ignorance of the subject you are trying to pontificate about. You seem to be falling prey to a phenomenon that Einstein spoke about:
“Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origin and accept them as invariable.”
The scientific method has a human origin, it is not absolute truth, so it is based on human assumptions, and quite a few at that.
Methodological naturalism isn’t even the only a priori assumption of the scientific method. For example, the scientific method also incorporates objectivist assumptions, such as that there is an objective reality that is consistent for all, and that there are physical laws which govern that reality which we can discover. There are many other assumptions, such as, that those physical laws can be sufficiently described by mathematics, or that a subset of a phenomenon can represent accurately all the properties of a larger set of that phenomenon.
All these assumptions are so universally agreed upon by scientists that they are hardly ever spoken. They “go without saying”, so I can see how you might be ignorant of them, but your ignorance doesn’t make them go away.
“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.”
That isn’t a conclusion of the scientific method, it’s an another a priori assumption. If it’s not, then whose theory is it? Whose theory is methodological naturalism, for that matter? If they are conclusions of the method, then they are theories, so it should be easy for you to show which scientists posited those hypotheses and how they demonstrated them in an observable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimental manner.
“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.”
I only reference the supernatural to point out the limitations of the scientific method. I’m not making an argument in favor of supernatural causes, although you have tried to bring that matter into the discussion. I’m not going to discuss it, because it’s not relevant to my original statement, and would require an entirely different discussion. Confusing the two issues isn’t productive. I don’t care what the topic of the thread is, I made one point, which you responded to, and the ensuing discussion is what I was referring to, not the thread as a whole.
“Nonsense, a definition is required to be the simplest accurate, precise blueprint for a thing, or concept as possible.”
Again, you use the word blueprint, which is completely different from the meaning of definition. A blueprint is a techical schematic, or more broadly used, a plan or symbolic representation of some key elements of a thing. The sense of the word is different than that of a definition in important ways. If you are looking for precision and accuracy, you should at least be aware of the proper definition of the words you use, perhaps starting with the word definition.
“There’s no anthropromorphism in the science of sentient rational machines.”
I never stated there was. I stated there was anthropomorphism in your assumption that you could apply properties of “sentient rational machines”, as you call them, to a deity. The science is not anthropomorphic, your misuse of it is.
I think you are being too hard on Spunkets. There are, in fact, several assumptions which science makes regarding the scientific method. Science is actually built on philosophy. Science is a slave to philosophy and cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and therefore cannot be the result of that search. For example scientists, by faith, that reason and scientific method allow an accurate understanding of the world around them. The scientific naturalist cannot prove the tools of science-the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity or the reliability of observations by running an experiment. The scientist simply has to assume those things are true in order to do the experiment. The physicalist cannot epistemologically account for logic, reason, or rational thought-they are metaphysical concepts and not made of matter or energy. If materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true, including the theory of materialism. Chemicals cannot evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals do not reason-they react. If materialism were true then determinism is true and what goes on inside your head would be the same as what goes on inside Spunkets head. But is seems, from the reading, they are not the same. Reason itself requires faith because a defense of reason by reason is circular and therefore worthless.
"you simply dont understand what anthropomorphic assumptions are. You don't understand science, nor what a sentient rational beings are.
Do you really understand the question you put forth-do you understand what a sentient rational being is? I would simply ask you the following: Why and how would brute matter which is not sentient, not conscious of surroundings give rise to conscious, sentient beings. How can it give what it does not have to give. Perhaps this is what Spunket was referring to regarding the reference to a theistic universe. I think he was referencing the metaphysical..that which is after physics. I am sentinent, Spunket is sentient, you are sentient....three minds which behave differently. As I have said several times, if the scientific naturalist, atheist is devoted to physicalism and the exclusivity of scientific method, then for you to tell your wife that you love her has no more meaning than for you to tell her that you have a gastrointestinal pain or an itch,...and is therefore meaningless.
I did not mean to interject into your conversation with Spunket. Forgive the interruption, please.