Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I want to understand why you think that just because science has currently recognized where mystical feelings have come from (in the brain), but not yet WHY the brain would cause such a thing to occur, that means to you that there needs to be some sort of external agent. Or perhaps not 'needs' but simply 'is'.

There are many things science hasn't found yet. But 100 years ago, there were many more, and science eventually found answers for them. None of them involved divinity. I want to know, essentially, why you fill your gaps with god instead of understanding that eventually - perhaps after your death, but eventually - these questions will get answered.

So the question you're really asking is about "the God of the gaps", right? Science has not filled that gap; therefore, God did it/it must be God. I am well aware of this line of thinking as a former atheist.

And of course that god is running out of gaps to hide in. Those that remain become smaller and smaller by the day. And most of the ones it hides in were discovered in the last century by science.

I have already explained to you my position on this matter. Because you refuse to read about philosophy,

Philosophy without physical evidence is mental masturbation.

it is very difficult to have a discussion with somebody who refuses to think about things in any other way than from a "rationalist" perspective. Because you want a "rational" answer to your questions, I cannot provide one; I concede the point that I cannot provide a rational answer to your question.

Rational thought is the only legitimate thought. All else is delusional.

In the other thread, you stated something vulgar about philosophy (that it is "mental wanking"). That just comes across as somebody who is too lazy and dismissive to try and learn this very challenging field of study. I feel that philosophy, advanced mathematics, theoretical computer science, and theoretical physics are probably the most challenging fields of study.

A question for you. What is a scientific theory?

You name four fields. Three of those four are quite likely to have the same people involved in at least two and certainly some involved in all three. The odd man out is philosophy which has no necessary connection to physical evidence and has never contributed anything significant much less lasting to the betterment of the human condition.

I am certain you will disagree. I am equally certain you cannot produce any physical evidence contrary to those statements.