First, we must all recognize that Scientific explanations do not rule out explanations at other levels.
Hi username18333, I suggest you take a close look at this link, because your arguments are not making sense to me...
5) The difference it makes is that valid =/= sound. Unfortunately, your argument isn't even valid because we already know with absolute confidence that Intelligent Design/God falls outside the scope of empiricism, and therefore you will never have empirical proof.
Hey 'joint',
you said that you would be happy to read evidence, so why not read Hatonn and see if there is anything which is not-true; as for me, I am still waiting for someone (anyone) to adequately address the observations presented in the Eisenbeiss case. A rational person can see that this case is strong evidence for the survival hypothesis, and that explanations grounded in fraud/deception are not supported by any evidence. As you can see, there is very strong evidence in favor of the afterlife, and belief in the afterlife is scientific.
To prove that all atheists are mistaken, it is enough that I point to the observations which strongly support the survival hypothesis. Any atheist (humanist) can provide adequate reasons to reject the evidence, but none have done so. Similarly, I can refute materialism by pointing to the latest knowledge in molecular biology which asserts that "life is more than just complicated chemistry".
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."--J.B.S. Haldane
So please read Journal 36 and also read "Marriage of Sense & Soul", where you will find these quotes:
"you will find, in this adventure, that the scientific method will never be left behind in the search for an ultimate ground"
"from the in-sides of an astonishment that has no boundaries,
an answer begins to suggest itself, and whisper to us lightly. If we listen very carefully, from within this infinite wonder, perhaps we can hear the gentle promise that, in the very heart of the Kosmos itself, both science and religion will be there to welcome us home."
"what is required is not a new monological science or a new dialogical interpretation, but a genuine method for directly opening to translogical contemplation, and no 'new scientific paradigm' whatsoever has been able to make that offer"
A good review of this book (with a link to the author's reply):
http://www.integralworld.net/sense_fv.htmlAnd a choice quote:
"science is more a certain attitude of experimentation, honesty, and collaborative inquiry, and it grounds its knowledge, wherever it can, in evidence."
Simply stated: to make a scientific discovery, one first has to (1) follow some instruction, then (2) do an observation, and (3) compare this to those of others, who have also followed the first two steps.
In E.O. Wilson's "Concilience" (pg 126-127), you will find this quote: "
Our deepest nature is unbounded, pure awareness. Neither the material nor the consciousness aspects of life are primary, as both continuously arise from the underlying Meta-universe. The continuing existence of the universe around us depends upon the unbroken generative power of the meta-universe (Whose Essence Is Pure Awareness)"--this quote is talking about GOD, the ONE POWER, ONE SPIRIT, ONE BEING, ONE LIGHT, etc.
Wilson also says "It is important to note that consciousness is
always connected with an object of knowing."
I note that Kant made a similar conclusion many years ago:
The field of philosophy... can be reduced to the following questions: What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope? What is the human being? Metaphysics answers the first question, morals the second, religion the third, and anthropology the fourth. Fundamentally, however, we could reckon all of this as anthropology.
These authors demonstrate the kind of collaborative inquiry that builds knowledge.
Also, you can read the conversation between Einstein and Tagore, and also watch "Deepak Chopra Essential DVD Collection" for related ideas.
Yes, I do think that I am making progress in explaining my rational faith; for example, I have provided a reference to the "content-source problem", which will allow one to scientifically evaluate any inspired text. If my beliefs are not sound, I would naturally want you to supply evidence in that regard.
Also, I have done more reading and found that atheism is logically absurd:
"Atheism is incompatible with science because a brain that was produced by natural selection would have evolved to enhance survival not apprehend truth and it would not be a reliable tool for understanding anything."
"Thought is replaced by electro-chemical neural events. Two such events cannot confront each other in rational discourse. They are neither right nor wrong. The simply happen ... The very assertions of the reductionist himself are nothing but blips in the neural network of his brain. The world of rational discourse dissolves into the
absurd chatter of firing synapses. Quite frankly, that cannot be right and none of us believes it to be so. "
"A third way materialism undermines science is that it makes a priori metaphysical assumptions in favor of naturalism that artificially limit the scope of science."