“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.
It is used by all sentient rational beings to know and understand reality. It does not depend on who they are, or where they exist.
"I only reference the supernatural to point out the limitations of the scientific method."
If phenomena that carry a probability of being true that is zero is a limitation, then that is a good thing.
"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."
Not of some key elements; it's a plan, or symbolic representation of the key elements of a thing.
Webster's: "2a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something"
2c : a product of defining.
"I stated there was anthropomorphism in your assumption that you could apply properties of sentient rational machines, as you call them, to a deity."
Deities are sentient rational beings, else they are inanimate objects like the sun, or moon. There is no other possibility.