" The problem with that brand of empricism is that even if something beyond the senses existed, it would have to be automatically rejected. " The primary flaw with a priori reasoning that rationalists tend to put their faith in is that not everything can be reduced to innate ideas or absolutes. There are certain logical statements that rationalism cannot really explain. Absolute truths do exist, but getting to these truths require empiricistic line of reasoning. There are innumerable facts about which scientists have no idea, but the primary reason behind this is that science and technology will hardly ever be so advanced as to allow us to become cognizant of all these facts. So what I am saying is that if God does exist, Science will, in the future, shed light on His existence. I, however, am quite skeptical. The electron microscope, for example, is an example of technology that has managed to enhance our senses. I therefore believe that we will have further made technological strides in the future, which will abet in bridging the gap between these truths and our knowledge of these truths. "Thats a bit circular because something is only scientific if it follows the scientific method, then how can something be scientific prior to the completion of the scientific method?" That's just semantics. If you prefer, I don't mind restating my statement as follows:"There has been no evidence of the existence of God." However, keep in mind that the Scientific Method itself is not circular, even though it seemed so in some of the statements I made in my previous post. So basically, you first observe(I misstated in my previous post), then hypothesize, make predictions, test your hypotheses, rinse and repeat. But the glaring errors in my previous post do not have any bearing on the assertions I am making. "I would suggest that what you mean is that there is no experience of God" What I mean is that nobody has observed Him. With no observation, the Scientific method fails. As I stated above, observation is the first step of the Scientific method, without which there can be no hypothesis. I misstated in my previous post. "Experience" of God is highly subjective, and the problem here is not not everybody has experienced him. "However, before one gets that experience, one should trust someone reliable who has stated that s/he has experienced God. " That's the exact problem I have with God. Some people believe that they have experienced him, but even if I follow the exact same procedure that somebody who has experienced God utilizes, I will not experience him. Science does not rely on personal experiences and anecdotes. It follows a set of procedure to know more about God. "Wrong, you only need to follow the correct procedure as taught by an authentic teacher while taking interest in the subject" If this were correct, then it follows that anybody who follows the procedure should experience him. This is, however, not the case. Some believers point to their dreams as experience of God, while others point to incidents they go through, but there is no exact procedure to experience God. That's the problem with trying to test the existence of God. In Science, a protocol needs to be repeatable. If the protocol cannot be repeated, then it is probably wrong. "If your form of atheism is materialism/naturalism in the sense that our minds are merely our brains " Well, mind is a very complicated concept. I do believe that brains play a big role in creating our minds, but mind is an abstract term, while brain is concrete. I, for one, do not believe that mind and brain are interchangeable. Now, the type of brain one has does in fact correlate with the type of mind one has. For instance, somebody with a defective brain clearly cannot think properly. People suffering from Alzheimer's disease tend to have anomalies in the brain. "The conclusion of your position neccesarily (though you may not know this) is that there is no free will" If indeed scientists used mind and brain interchangeably, what you asserted would in fact be true, but mind is a product of the firing of neurons and various other biological functions. Nobody knows what makes a mind tick. We do not understand all biological processes. However, there are certain instincts for which I would say we are preprogrammed. Sex is but one example. We are all programmed to copulate and produce babies. Animals do it, and so do we. Keep in mind, though, that the function of the brain is not just to make us think. The brain also controls our heartbeat, respiration, sex drive, etc. You don't need to think in order to make your heart beat. Your body does it automatically for you. "Let us not forget that Sruti said that everything in the world is energy about 3,000 years before the clever little scientists did" Maybe it did, but Sruti does not really go through a set of procedures to show that everything has energy. Secondly, which religion is correct? The Bible enunciates that the earth is merely 6000 years old. This is presented as the truth in the Bible. Science clearly contradicts this "truth".