Demonstrate to me that science (ie. scientific method) does not use philosophical presuppositions in order to render it valid.
You've made the positive claim that it does. Show this claim is true. I do expect lots of examples.
What you are doing is attempting to use science to argue for science. In effect, though, what you are really doing is using a metaphysical argument to argue that science is the basis for all reason by using what amounts to philosophical presuppositions about reality.
"Of its very nature, scientific investigation takes for granted such assumptions as that: there is a physical world existing independent of our mind; this world is characterized by various objective patterns and regularities; our senses are at least partially reliable sources of information about this world; there are objective laws of logic and mathematics that apply to the objective world outside our minds; our cognitive powers – of concept-formation, reasoning from premises to a conclusion, and so forth – afford us a grasp of these laws and can reliably take us from evidence derived from the senses to conclusions about the physical world; the language we use can adequately express truths about these laws and about the external world; and so on and on. Every one of these claims embodies a metaphysical assumption, and science, since its very method presupposes them, could not possible defend them without arguing in a circle." Professor Edward Feser from his The Last Superstition.
Yep, figured you had nothing.
No, BS, we are not using science to argue for science. Scientists use observation and experimentation to support hypotheses. You, my lovely hypocrite, use the results of this everyday, whilst claiming that no one should since it supposedly cannot work. The same evidence that supports the sciences is the same science that makes you comfy and the same science that shows your religious claims are untrue.
It's the usual ignorance of a theist who wants to pretend that "science" is some monolith. It isn't. There is the scientific method that the various sciences (see, plural) use. You trust it when you use your computer, your car, modern medicine, modern foodstuffs, a GPS, etc.
It's always great fun to see a theist insist that since we cannot supposedly know anything for certain, that means his god has to exist. If this is true, then all gods must exist, all fairies, all leprechauns, all reptiloids, all Grays, every entity a human has invented as explanations of why the universe work. Are you willing to admit that all of these beings are as real as your god, BS? If not, what special pleading will you claim for your god? And if there isn't a physical world, please grab a white hot bar of iron with your bare hand, because if there is no physical world, then you can't possibly be hurt. Now, I'm guessing you would invent some reason to refuse, showing that you don't believe such philosophical bullshit at all and only use it as a "gap" to stuff your god into.
next, we'll see you claiming solipsism. the last remaining refuge of the theist.
Feser is quite the apologist. It's always great fun to see apologists excuse their god's impotence:
" “God can and will bring out of the sufferings of this life a good that so overshadows them that this life will be seen in retrospect to have been worth it."