The question is not one of proof, but of credibility. Which story is more credible: the old story or the new story? So the new story goes like this. Scientists who build upon the philosophical tradition of naturalism (aka materialism) assume that all that exists is matter, or “stuff”. Scientific materialists assume that because all there is is matter, there is nothing else. Belief in anything requiring faith, doctrine, or mystery is illogical and irrational because all that exists can be observed by the human senses. There is no invisible realm, no supernatural, only superstitious people who create primitive and irrational schemes to control people. Science claims that it is the purest form of knowledge, and though science is incomplete at the moment, science will one day produce a "Theory of Everything" to explain all reality in terms of physical characteristics. Once the grand "theory of everything" is established religion and all of its friends will wither away u
logorrhea representing a life once lived as evangelical trying to come to terms with something called reality