Would appreciate it if any of you know the name of a very common type of disagreement I find popping up everywhere :yum:

This is a simplified (yes, really) version of a discussion I was having with someone. I spotted a kind of error in between all the various "what do you mean" "no that's not what that means" threads of the discussion, so the full context might be useful for clarity, but might not be necessary to find and classify the error.

TL;DR down at the bottom.

ME: All languages originate in minds, and the laws of physics and mathematics are languages, so the existence of these laws implies the existence of God.

(to support my claim about language, I referred to physics being mathematical, which was then attacked falling within the category of "science" and therefore not opposed to "naturalism", a term they introduced to the discussion)

SOMEONE: whatever it is that you're getting at with the mathematical nature of physics, it won't get you a refutation of naturalism, a fortiori, it won't get you a strong argument for theism. Theism is a metaphysical theory, you cannot prove it either true or false using science, because science is set within a metaphysical framework that excludes the supernatural, and thereby excludes theism.

ME: I refute naturalism by asserting the relationship between consciousness and language. I think you're mistaking science for empiricism. Empiricism, not science, excludes the supernatural and theism. Science is compatible with theism.

SOMEONE: Science employs methodological naturalism, supernatural objects are excluded from the statements of science. You are confusing laws of science with laws of nature by stating that all laws are languages that come from minds.

ME: Experimentation and interpretation of data depend on intentionality and free will for one thing, and those aren't natural. Science is a process of hypothesising, performing experiments and interpreting data so I don't see how supernatural phenomena would be excluded from this.

SOMEONE: Of course they're natural! Science requires various non-scientific assumptions, but as science is part of naturalism, all those assumptions must be natural. If you don't see how supernatural phenomena would be excluded, I suggest you look up methodological naturalism.

ME: I don't know what you mean by laws of nature then. You said earlier that science excludes theism and you're saying this is because science employs methodological naturalism which excludes the supernatural, which theism fits the definition of. And this is to prove to me that I "won't be able" to prove theism by showing that physics is mathematical in nature. But the Britannica page on naturalism says it has no preference for atheism or theism.

SOMEONE: Methodological naturalism is not metaphysical naturalism, so we can employ methodological naturalism even if there are supernatural objects, but we cannot say either that there are or are not such objects by using science, because as science employs methodological naturalism, all the objects that appear in the stories told by science are natural.

ME: You said I'm confusing the laws of science with the laws of nature. I'm not sure how your conception of either applies to what I've made clear is what I mean by "physical and mathematical laws". If they "might not exist", we definitely aren't talking about the same thing, because what I'm talking about does exist and does meet my requirements (the requirements of a language). If you think otherwise, you're free to explain why. If you think, as you agreed earlier, that free will and intentionality are natural, then this makes my conception of God natural.

SOMEONE: Then you just aren't talking about what anyone in the discussion means by a "god", because gods are paradigmatic examples of supernatural beings.

ME: I mean the creator of space, time and all laws of mathematics and physics.

SOMEONE: your argument requires laws of nature but it only has descriptive laws, these have no metaphysical force. The creator of space, time is a supernatural being, so your position is inconsistent, viz: 1) god is natural 2) god is supernatural 3) nothing is both natural and supernatural 4) nothing is god.

ME: Now you're just winging it. I saidif you think free will and intentionality are natural, then I'm willing to mean "God" to be natural, or vice versa if you think free will and intentionality are supernatural. That doesn't mean I'm committing myself to God being both natural and supernatural. That's actually just your position, since you're saying free will and intentionality are natural and that the creator of spacetime is supernatural. You're just insisting that the creator of spacetime can't be natural and ignoring the content of my argument.

SOMEONE: Science includes the assumption that researchers have free will and science is part of methodological naturalism, so free will is part of naturalism. In order to create space and time a being must be outside space and time, as the only natural objects outside space and time are abstract objects and abstract objects are causally inert, and as a creator of space and time cannot be causally inert, a creator of space and time must be supernatural. I've had enough, thanks for your replies.

TL;DR

Basically, I claimed to deduce G exists, because Lan is only produced by m, Lan exists and G is an m. Someone then said Lan (and its means of production m) is "n" which excludes "s-n" and G is "s-n". I reply that Lan and m wouldn't be excluded if they were "s-n" (ie that the distinction between "n" and "s-n" is just an effete label) and therefore neither is G. I also add that if Lan and m are "n", as they insist, then this just makes G an "n", but doesn't disprove G's existence, and if they were to insist that Lan and m are "s-n",then this would just make G an existing "s-n". Someone then replies that by "G", I do not mean what everyone else means by "G". I reply that "G" means (thing that someone always categorises as an "s-n"). Someone then replies that "then your position is inconsistent! "s-n" is always the opposite of "n"! And the Lan and m of your argument are "n"! But "G" of your argument is "s-n"! Your argument contains a contradiction!".

The error seems to originate in insisting that a particular name is within a certain category, and that this category can't coexist with its opposite. They're then insisting that parts of my argument are one and other parts are the other. There is then some discussion with them saying I can't conclude the existence of the "name", because I'm confusing the meat of my argument with something else that has less power than the category they say would prove it. I respond providing an argument that I've catgeorised the meat of my argument within their categorisation system correctly (ie, I stand my ground within the categorisation they're insisting on, purely for the sake of brevity). I also include that they can apply any category they like.

It then just turns out that they're simply insisting that I accept the labels they impose as productive, and ignore the substance of my argument. This seems to be done to avoid addressing whether my points about free will, intentionality and language productively infer the existence of "the creator of space, time" while instead just making the uncharitable imposition that "The creator of space, time is a supernatural being, so your position is inconsistent, viz: 1) god is natural 2) god is supernatural 3) nothing is both natural and supernatural 4) nothing is god." In other words, I'm actually breaking the categorisation, and they're ignoring that I am.

Whatever the error is, it's where someone just insists that you adopt the same categorisation they do and any internal distinctions it makes, that you accept the way they label your position within that system and therefore any conclusions they make using it. It seems to be like a definitional fallacy or straw man, combined with missing the point.