From the beginning, when you first denied the charge of 'personifying science', I've responded the say way: science is not legitimately 'personified' in any sense because that allows you to ignore the 'a priori' beliefs of the people, yes people, who make statements that you attribute to 'science'.
"Now from your persistent criticism and mocking of me on this, I gather that destroying the very word "science" is critical to your own theology/philosophy."
Persistently pointing out your inappropriate personification of science is not criticism or mocking you and you have no basis for attacking me as trying to 'destroy the word science'. You simply misrepresent the truth because it is inconvenient for your argument.
"But since you refuse to directly answer my response, I conclude your argument is probably false."
But since you refuse to directly answer my response, I conclude your argument is probably false.
"You obviously think very highly of your own "thinking skills." I'm less impressed with them, and even less with your pretense of intellectual honesty. I am most impressed with how quickly you misrepresent my arguments and how flatly you refuse to honestly answer them."
You obviously think very highly of your own "thinking skills." I'm less impressed with them, and even less with your pretense of intellectual honesty. I am most impressed with how quickly you misrepresent my arguments and how flatly you refuse to honestly answer them.
"Another false accusation. I've said the same thing from the beginning. You just don't like my answer, so you misrepresent it and mock me for it."
Another false accusation. I've said the same thing from the beginning. You just don't like my answer, so you misrepresent it and mock me for it.
"Here is the fact: people who work in scientific fields say their work is based on "methodological naturalism," meaning, they assume natural causes for natural occurrences. Some, but not all, also believe in what you call "philosophical naturalism," meaning they claim there is no supernatural reality beyond the "natural world.""
Here is the fact: people who work in scientific fields propose theories that are based on an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism through the fallacy of affirming the consequent. All of them. Without exception.
"But few that I know of would further assert that your "philosophical naturalism" is a NECESSARY foundation for methodological naturalism."
That would be the fallacy of anecdotal evidence.
"My opinion on this is, "methodological naturalism" should be more than adequate explain every scientific theory I know of. I see no need to ever sink down to the level of "philosophical naturalism.""
Then you haven't looked at the Big Bang, abiogenesis or macroevolution. None of those stand on methodological naturalism, they stand on philosophical naturalism.
"So your charge of "philosophical naturalism" is not self-evidently true, and therefore should require you to provide some proof, demonstration or evidence for it."
My claim of philosophical naturalism is self-evidently true for the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution. You charge or methodological naturalism is not self-evidently true, and therefore should require you to provide some proof, demonstration or evidence for it.
Unless you prefer to assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and invoke the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Nonsense
"Persistently pointing out your inappropriate personification of science is not criticism or mocking you and you have no basis for attacking me as trying to 'destroy the word science'. You simply misrepresent the truth because it is inconvenient for your argument."
Ridiculous
"Here is the fact: people who work in scientific fields propose theories that are based on an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism through the fallacy of affirming the consequent. All of them. Without exception."
Rubbish
"That would be the fallacy of anecdotal evidence."
No.
"Then you haven't looked at the Big Bang, abiogenesis or macroevolution. None of those stand on methodological naturalism, they stand on philosophical naturalism."
Not true.
"My claim of philosophical naturalism is self-evidently true for the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution. You charge or methodological naturalism is not self-evidently true, and therefore should require you to provide some proof, demonstration or evidence for it."
No it isn't.
"Unless you prefer to assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and invoke the fallacy of affirming the consequent."
Outrageous.