That's pathetic trolling.

"Universality of math" is ambiguous. Math could be universally applicable for objective or subjective (Kantian) reasons. There are different philosophical interpretations of math. So maybe scientists are being platonists about math or maybe they're only being pragmatic (using math as a tool until it fails). Do you think pragmatism is as dubious as metaphysical platonism?

Note that I didn't say scientists don't presuppose the universality of math. I said the notion that "mathematics is universally true" is your bit of crudity (it's a crude notion because it's ambiguous, as I just showed). Yet you demanded that I support your crude notion. And again, that was your attempt to refute me in the only place where I was agreeing with you.

And no "mind reading" is needed to figure out this blunder of yours. Here's the full quote, beginning with your quote of where I agree with you:

"I agree that metaphysical narratives should be added to scientific models to enable us to fully understand the world."

-To defeat your argument, in literally 10 seconds, I want you to provide the emperical scientific model that demonstrates the proposition "Mathematics is univesally true, even in other universes".

-Here, I'll help you. None exists, BUT, such a "armchair reasoning" must be true, or "science" is literally useless, and is the entire basis for science.

So you're still mixed up about who's saying what, and what's up and what's down. (The less said about the last, confused, ungrammatical paragraph of yours that I quoted, the better.)

Thanks for showcasing the nonsense we can expect from haughty Thomistic apologists.