Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Esquilax]

#5 -
the book of nature is not the same as the philosophical or scientific interpretations of nature. materialism is theory of physical matter: definition - everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

So basically you get around being wrong about what biology says by redefining what's in nature to exclude what science actually says, and to include all the stuff you want to believe. What justification do you have to do that, beyond your opinion? And why on earth do you think that fiat redefinition would be at all compelling to us?

even one of your own, top drawer eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel says "Nagel affirms that he’s an atheist, but he also asserts that there’s an entirely different realm of non-physical stuff that exists—namely, mental stuff." http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turn...s-are-real

As if being an atheist lends automatic support from the rest of us? No, atheists disagree with each other all the time. Besides, he's a philosopher, he has no experience with which he can comment on neuroscience or biology.

Also, just saying, you're drawing a reference from an atheist in order to support your unjustified assertion that there's a soul, and then specifically quoting that the guy believes in "mental stuff" which says nothing about a soul. You're just waffling on, now.

I also happen to think these anti-materialist woo-woo guys miss the boat: "Derived solely from physical matter," does not mean "only physical matter." The "mental stuff" Nagel's talking about is a process, not an object, emergent from the physical arrangement of the brain.