The forum has once again shown that Empiricists must prove their principles by their conclusions instead of prove their conclusions by their principles.
No, the forum has once again shown that Olivianus's beliefs are based off of flim-flam masquerading as logic. Let's summarize.
1. Olivianus believes that knowledge is only attainable if you have an "unchanging object perceived through qualitative change" which can reveal it. This fancy terminology basically means something that doesn't change yet can be seen through changes it makes.
2. Per #1, anyone who claims to have knowledge must have received it from an "unchanging object of knowledge".
3. Because science does not depend on an "unchanging object of knowledge" to 'reveal' things, Olivianus believes it is circular in nature (that science makes assumptions which are proven by the conclusion).
4. Olivianus believes that biblical scripture is coherent through all of history, therefore it must have been revealed.
5. Per #4, biblical scripture must have come from an "unchanging object of knowledge".
The problem is, while his arguments might be logical in nature, they are also completely useless. The first problem is that we have no way to actually prove that an "unchanging object of knowledge" exists in the first place, making it not useful for checking knowledge against.
Second, the fact that a logical proposition is coherent does not prove that it is true, it simply proves that it is coherent. It is entirely possible to have contradictory propositions be coherent with themselves, even though they cannot both be true. For that matter, it is entirely possible to show that something that cannot be true is coherent. Without a way to verify the truth value of a logical proposition, simply showing that it is coherent is not useful.
Third, biblical scripture is not coherent. There are many inconsistencies within scripture, both in Bibles printed today, and in texts that have been preserved. Something that is inconsistent cannot be coherent. Furthermore, there is no way to show that biblical scripture was ever coherent in the first place. Indeed, the likelihood is that it never was at all. The fact that Christians required the Council of Nicea to decide what was legitimate scripture and what wasn't is a powerful argument against the idea that it was ever based on a single coherent text.
That rather thoroughly demolishes Olivianus's argument against science. If we have no unchanging objects of knowledge in the first place, and thus no way to have knowledge 'revealed' to us, then the fact that science and math are not based off of such things is meaningless.