Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[Tiberius]

1. True...but it is even better to have a Biblical world view that presupposes God and the Bible as the Word of God because such a world view can not only account for the uniformity of nature (which can be used to further advance technology) but it can also account for the laws of logic we use in our scientific endeavors, which I do not think materialistic presuppositions can do since the laws of logic are other than matter and/or energy. (I do agree that assuming everything is supernatural and nothing behaves in a law like fashion gets you nowhere, but that is not my world view.)

Yet unless you can prove God exists (and that the God you prove exists is the Christian God), your Biblical world view is nothing more than mindless speculation, thrown together and held as truth without good reason. I could equally argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster accounts for the uniformity of nature, laws of logic, etc, etc, or any other God I can think of.

It should also be pointed out to you that the Bible has an abismal track record of making truthful claims about reality. In Genesis alone, we have a creation story that reflects none of what nature tells us happened, the moon being described as a "light" (it is not one), and a global flood that le, leaves no trace whatsoever (despite it happening recently in terms of geological time), and fails to account for the diversity of animals and their locations on every land-mass on Earth.

2. Relative to origins, nothing you said seems to change or refute my statement that if you only uses materialistic assumptions for science and you treat origins as a scientific question and the universe came to be in other than a materialistic manner, then it seems that science would never be able to discover that manner because it would automatically be rejected for its lack of adherence to materialism.

No, science would not discover this answer, and I still hold that science is not meant to discover such answers! Science is the observation of nature, not super-nature. If the super-natural exists, and someone develops an accurate way of observing and learning about it, then the study of the supernatural shall sit next to science. However, I no of no such methods (at least not reliable un-debunked ones) that do this.

Actually I was not. That is why I said "scientists in general".

theVOID answered this point well. Science has changed before, and it can again. Matter was first studied through pre-scientific methods, and then later when we defined energy, that was studied. If we find some other form of "thing" (can't think of the better word, sorry!) to study, it will be incorporated.

How would you know? It seems like you could never satisfy the part where you say "such that another law could not be interjected in order to explain the occurrence". It seems like the things that "would constitute a good reason to believe something other than material happened" for you are things that you would never even recognize.

You could technically not satisfy on an objective level, no, but you could certainly be satisfied on a subjective level. As for your last assertion, I disagree completely. If the stars were to rearrange themselves to spell out a sentence, say, "Hey guys, I exist. - God", then technically I would have to admit that to some degree it could all just be coincidence, but I would probably be convinced of some kind of supernatural force at work.

I think you are using a loose definition of logic here. Logic in a more formal sense is certainly not needed to understand anything. One can understand much of language without logic. I would not say logic is a precondition for understanding revelation. I think logic is a tool to use for discovering things beyond the basics of God's revelation.

I meant logic in terms of our way of thinking rather than formal definitions of logic. Our brains use logic to reason and form language. Formal logic is more of a description of how we think, and corrections to how we think (in the form of fallacies) based on the three laws.

All proofs go back to some unprovable premises (assumptions) which could be wrong by definition. So based on this, it would seem to follow that you think that there is no such thing as an "argument of proof". True? So does this lead you to reject any world view? If not, why?

Not all proofs. Certainly the three laws of logic and their proofs of validity rest on no unprovable premises, since for one of them to be untrue would be a contradiction of another law, which would lead to the "untrue" law to be true. All arguments that come directly off these laws are likewise confirmed and true. An example of such an argument would be "I think, therefore I am" which is the famous Descartes proof of self-existence. Using the principle that anything with an attribute exists in some form (otherwise it cannot have that attribute), further defining something that thinks as having an attribute of "thinking" and therefore of existence, to ponder about whether you actually exist is to prove that you do.

As to the circularity, all presuppositions are subject to cirularity to some degree, since presuppositions by definition are taken as self-attesting or self-evidence and not requiring "proof". If one presupposes materialism, then interprets all the facts/evidence in light of this materialistic presupposition, one would then conclude that materialism is confirmed.

No, that is not how presuppositions works. Presuppositions are as good as assumptions (and by that, I mean not very good at all). For instance:

X - Some presupposition.
Y - Some other presupposition that contradicts some part of X (but is not necessarily equal to ¬X)

One could argue, "presupposing X, we see that Z is explained, therefore C1". However, one could also argue "presupposing Y, we see that Z is explained, therefore C2".

It is in this sense that TAG fails as well. One can presuppose Christian theism, explain the existence of morality or knowledge, and say that God exists. One can also presuppose evolutionary morality, the evolution of brain patterns, etc, etc, and explain the exact same thing, coming to no conclusion about God's existence.