Viv if you go back and read what I wrote, I did not say that science itself involves the assumption that its results can tell us about God. I say that some people, using science to undermine God, rely on the assumption that science can tell us about and whether there is a God.
You did write it. You wrote " I am pointing out that this approach to understanding reality rests upon various assumptions that are difficult the establish. Such as the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God. Also the assumption that human rationality is the measure of what is real and exists in the world."
Cofty's comments don't rest on that at all. Please explain what point you are making without a central tenant of your argument.
Science itself relies on methodological materialist assumptions in order to operate. There is no problem with that. The problem is when people use the results of relying upon those assumptions as evidence for a philosophical materialist position. That is circular reasoning.
Well, so far you've not shown an example of one of those assumptions. Please do so. (and that's not cuircular reasoning, BTW)
. A river can be cold, it can be blue, it can be rough, it can be clean, it can be amazing, it can be ugly, it can be ancient, it can be artificial. What makes no sense whatsoever is to pit different kinds of descriptions against one another as if they are in competition. Like if someone was to say, the river can't be rough because it's ancient, or it can't be majestic because it's cold. Just because we can talk about life and how it arose in naturalistic terms does not exclude other ways of talking about it. It is not a competition.
First, you make a classic category error. "A river" is many things. It can be both cold and hot at the same time, much in the same way "a house" can have both a bathroom and a kitchen. Unless an entire river shares all properties at all places all the time, the proper way to speak of it would be "this section of the river at this point time has properties X, Y and Z".
So, now that you know you've made at least three fundamental errors in attempting your argument to denigrate others, please reformulate and get back to us.