Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[I_am_not_mafia]

It is obvious that all truth is not scientific. Examples: it is morally wrong to murder someone. It is true that humans are affected by natural beauty. Freedom is better than slavery.

Except those aren't truths. Not all humans are affected by natural beauty. Some are indifferent to it. It can't be a truth that it is morally wrong to murder someone, but also to go to war for a good cause. And not everyone does prefer freedom to slavery.

If I told you about a cannibal mother who ate her own children then you'd call her evil.  But many animals such as rats and mice do this. Is it was a moral truth not to kill your own children that existed even if humans did not, then how does this apply to other non-human animals?

If every human and every human record were erased, every one of the concepts you described would still exist. This is illustrated simply by the fact that if a new species evolved with the ability to reason, it would discover these very same things about reality (numbers, Pi ratios, logic, etc.). 

You absolutely cannot assume that. When I gave the example of an apple actually being referred to as a part of a tree, I was thinking in my head at the time that an alien might well think in those terms. Life and intelligence are forms of self organisation, this means that they increase entropy more so over the long term than if they did not develop. How they increase entropy depends on the environment in which they develop. This is why we can't be sure that we will even recognise extra-terrestial life or intelligence when we see it, because the environment it developed in may be so utterly different to what we expect.

Language, maths and logic are means by which a life form can be intelligent. Like with the development of life and intelligence, their use increase entropy over time more so than if they were not used. Again, the most efficacious way that entropy can be increased depends on the environment. Would a parts of an alien hive mind or super organism automatically have a sense of self? Would they need integers? There are scientific problems that our current forms of Maths and logic are not suitable for, so we invent other forms which are incompatible with what we already have. For example fuzzy logic is incompatible with first order predicate calculus because it does not have the values of true and false. So we cannot make any assumptions about how another intelligent species make think or what kind of logic or maths it might use, if any.

Again explain what an ethic is and how it can have an effect on the universe if there are no humans. Where did it come from? How did it come about? What does it consist of? Where does it get its energy from?

Depends on your view. My view is that most ethical truths are intuited. Others say they are reasoned. Either way, they are still ethical truths. It is wrong to murder, lie and steal. Ethics requires humans. 

So you didn't answer the question about what an ethic actually is, how it came about, what it consists of and where it gets its energy from. You need to answer all these if you are going to convince anyone that they can exist without humans (or even without other animals).

Instead you show us that your truths are specific to what you personally feel to be the case. Yet you have no way of determining whether you have these feelings because of something external to yourself or because of how your brain is wired through a combination of upbringing and evolution.

It is a fact that the physical brain is not the same thing as consciousness. Consciousness is an epiphenomenon. 

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain. Without the physical brain there would be no consciousness. There is plenty of evidence for this.

The natural world is any physical thing that exists that is subject to our laws of nature. I believe that natural events can have supernatural causes (definition of a miracle). Science is by definition the study of the natural world. Supernatural causes are outside it's ability to investigate or comment on. It can examine the effect--just not the cause. That is not special pleading. You are attempting to apply science beyond its definition. Why would you say that natural things do not affect the supernatural world? How do you know? 

I would say that by definition the supernatural world does not exist because it is not part of nature. If it existed, it would be part of nature. It is you that is equivocating by using an ambiguous term that cannot be defined. All you can do is say that the natural world is subject to natural laws and the supernatural world has supernatural causes. You are defining terms by themselves. What is the difference between natural and supernatural? You cannot say. Your ambiguous equivocation allows you to believe what you like.