Quantum physics proves god?

Nothing that ever goes mainstream is cutting edge. Great truths always goes through Schopenhauer's three stages: Ridicule, Denial/Opposition, and finally Acceptance. By the time a new scientific or philosophical paradigm hits the mainstream it has already been largely accepted by even the most obstinate professionals.

Atheism/materialism is old and antiquated news. It's arguments stale and thoroughly refuted. The immensely frustrating thing is that materialistic Atheists seem unable to realize how incredibly shallow their thinking really is.

No Chance, you're talking about two different things. On the one hand you have science as a method and on the other you have the common concept of science as a series of commonly accepted assumptions about the natural world. The method is not being challenged.

The assumptions are. And yes, you would emphatically (perhaps dogmatically) insist that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. If you didn't assume 3D geometry is the only possible dimension of measurement you might concede the Earth is circular or some incomprehensible extra dimensional shape.

4 Min, suppose your brain is a radio and I break off the antenna. The radio is now only capable of producing seemingly random static. However, the circuitry is still receiving coherent radio signals from terrestrial stations in addition to random cosmic interference.

Our ears cannot directly separate the wheat from chaff but it is feasible for an immensely complex algorithm to be used to accomplish this task. Imagine a cognitive system of similar function. You can damage one area of the brain to lose the ability to decode certain functions of behavior but this does not mean that severe brain damage has necessarily destroyed the operability of the human soul.

In this example you have simply changed the nature of the body's ability to communicate with the external world.

There is no "dogma" in science. If you think there is, you've missed the point entirely. One reason the religious fight so hard against science is because it has no "dogma" -- the entire process is about constantly challenging what we know or think we know, and updating what we know with new evidence and information.

That's the opposite of "dogma." By the way, your generalizations about both scientists and atheists are worthless and rather silly. They're also quite dishonest.

Proud of that, are you? "Fortunately for those of us with a forward thinking outlook on Science/ Experimental evidence demonstrates that matter is a product of consciousness therefore consciousness is not necessarily a product of material interaction." To put it nicely, that is a pile of dog poo.

Edit, you wrote: "lol your idealized view of science is hopelessly naive in the context of the history and sociology of science. It portrays scientists as open-minded seekers of truth, not ordinary people competing for funds and prestige, constrained by peer-group pressures and hemmed in by prejudices and taboos. " No, it doesn't -- your mischaracterization of my comments is as dishonest as the rest of your post.

The scientific process is by definition the opposite of dogmatic -- for the very reason that it's conducted by people with irrational thoughts, biases, prejudices, and taboos. And what the history of science and its sociology show is that *despite" those prejudices and taboos, the method works for finding out facts -- because it encourages challenging of any "dogmatic" ideas. It also exposes dishonesty like yours.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.