Hell

[Captain Scarlet]

When evaluating a truth claim then the best and only reliable method we have is science which relies on evidence.

This is itself a truth claim, but I can conceive of no evidence that supports it. By its own lights, then, I must reject it.

Wrong. Evidence: Electricity, penicilin, suspension bidges, radio, laser, nuclear power, genetically modified food, telecscopes, computers, television, the internal combustion engine, petrol...

This is evidence that the scientific method (generally conceived) is effective for evaluating scientific claims about the physical world, but it says nothing about the epistemological claim that the scientific method is the best and only reliable method for evaluating all truth claims (e.g. epistemological claims).

My claim was that it were powerful inductive reasons for beliveing this is the case, so I should formally add the word 'probably'. I specifically stated that it is not deductive. It makes a difference to a formal philosophical structure to an argument, but not to the way we practically run our lives. As we only have a limited time on this earth we kind of have to make up our minds on what we are actually going to believe. I imagine (but do not know) that you operate your life as if that statement I made was also true.
Would you argue that Jesus really can solely be relied upon to heal you or you loved ones in a real medical emergency? Or that praying for your lamps to come on will be the best way to light up your house at night? The truth claims evalauated by science have led to the advances we see. There are no truth claims (that I'm aware of) made by theism that are not highly dubious. So lets 'walk the talk' here