Since Heaven and Hell are not temporal ..

[Esquilax]

Does not the continued, demonstrable efficacy of those branches of science that do work count as a good enough basis?

Ready, fire, aim. My point was the that science IS efficacious. It's effectiveness has a reason: final causes are at play. Your explanation for the efficacy of science is boils down to 'it works because it works', i.e. circular reasoning.

So, I point out that simply asserting something by fiat is not an effective method of argumentation, and you respond by... asserting the existence of final causes for certain things by fiat.

And... yes, science works because it works. It's a methodology, that's sort of the only way you can measure the efficacy of a methodology; it sets out to accomplish something, and if it succeeds in doing that then it's effective, and if it fails, it does not. Science seeks to make accurate predictions and models of reality, it does so when executed correctly, therefore it is effective. That efficacy does not require an explanation beyond the limited contextual framework of its existence, because the yardstick for "effectiveness" is always relative to the objectives of the thing in question, which in terms of science are man made, and not magical.

I know you love to make completely unsupported demands that every last little thing be justified, ultimately, by some special magic argument from ignorance spell, but sometimes A is just A, because A is defined by humans to mean A. Science is effective because humans determine what science is used for, and it is good at accomplishing that goal. Final causes are not required, nor even relevant.

And not supported. Let's not forget that you didn't bother justifying what you said here at all.