"He (Hawking) is claiming that scientific knowledge is the only important knowledge."

And that's the crux of the discussion: science has found the Higgs boson, which is the source of gravity, but it hasn't and never will find some "importance particle". None can ever be found under any microscope or telescope because there is no 'importance' in nature or in existence!

Modern atheists like Hawking claim, irrationally, that science is important, that nature is important, that existence is important, despite never finding even a hint of evidence for the existence of 'importance'.

And to balance, a word for theists too: if you, by far chance, manage to 'prove' God's existence, then whatever you managed to prove would be just an object, rendering your prayers and worship to be towards an object, i.e. you would then be worshipping an idol. Better not - better reject and stay away as from fire from any god whose existence can be proven!

If one constantly casts their eyes to the ground, they would never see the sky. If one constantly gives all importance to the material world, they would never find God. That's not God's fault - it's a perfect result of where one chooses to focus their attention.

To recognize visual objects,..our sensory perceptions are transformed through dynamic neural interactions..into meaningful representations of the world..but exactly how visual inputs invoke object meaning remains unclear.

how much more meaning is invoked..if god is perceived as meaningless

or seen via mortal minds
cant conceive the eternal..
or vile puerile minds that cannot conceive true goodness..infinite love..cant see spirit [or concieve grace/mercy etc

To address this issue,..we apply a regression approach to magnetoencephalography data,..modeling perceptual and conceptual variables. ..[ie baffle em with..'ever newer science model illusionist bling]..in lue of the amazing pre-existent omnipresent created reality..before us.

in that case..they look at bits..Key conceptual measures were derived..from semantic feature–based models claiming shared features (e.g., has not eyes..yet is all seeing)..

provide broad category information,..distinctive features (e.g.,loves all/created all..has grace/mercy upon all)..are additionally required for more specific objective identification.

any results show initial perceptual effects..as bias in visual cortex that are rapidly followed..by semantic feature effects throughout ventral temporal cortex..By relating spatio-temporal neural activity to statistical feature–based measures of semantic knowledge,we demonstrate that qualitatively different kinds of perceptual and semantic information are extracted from visualised objects over time,

.. with rapid activation of shared objective features..followed by subjective concomitant activation of distinctive features that together enable that subjectively meaningfully visualized..as an objective recognition.

or something like it..

but whatever is concluded..
all must have the same rules..same disadvantage/opportunities as your peers..had

that until..it can be conceived..it simply wont be believed..

Antiseptic,

" Ockham's Razor doesn't apply, because the empirical approach doesn't address issues of causality or of perceptual variance."

Have to disagree--why is another concept, a creator necessary? What is the issue of causality in regard to the universe? What caused God?
Any personal experiences and beliefs are just that, personal, and unless they are testable, of no scientific value whatsoever.
There are scientific explanations for belief, there's an excellent book that explains the evolutionary reasons for religious belief--

"why we believe in god(s)" by J Anderson Thomson Jr & Claire Aukofer

There are some "New Scientist" articles that are also useful.

So much intellectual effort has been expended over millennia by philosophers and theologians in attempts justify an essentially irrational concept, modern science has explained the origins and persistence of religious faith.

'Under One God' supports the notion "To recognize (sic) visual objects our sensory perceptions are transformed through dynamic neural interactions into meaningful representations of the world but exactly how visual inputs invoke object meaning remains unclear."

Perhaps you should study something related to photons, this might clear things up a little for you.

Please also note, and I am only writing on my behalf, but probably on a par with many posters 'thoughts' that you should consider giving up prose, you fail badly and no-one appears interested in your rants.

Either add to the argument or give the key-board a rest, nuff said

Geoff

The evolutionary psychological approach begs the question, mac. It doesn't examine whether there may be a God, it looks at the advantages in group selection terms of religious belief.

I agree that such advantages exist and that religious structures within society help to perpetuate the eusociality that is a major part of being human.

However, whether religious belief has independent validity is a separate issue which the evolutionary psychological approach doesn't address as far as I can tell.

Personal perception is what drives insight and whether you are able to experience the same perception as me doesn't invalidate either of our perceptual frameworks. All you are doing is demanding that we must all be identical, when that is patently obviously not the case.

I have lived a different life to you and I was equipped with a different sensorium, cognitive and perceptive capacity to you. You may have much keener eyes than me, for example and I must take your claim that something exists in the distance either on faith or I must try to get closer so I can perceive it myself. If it has moved by the time I am close enough to see, do I then say you must have been mistaken or worse, lying?

Not all things are empirically determinable. Empiricism only allows us to have some consensual reality, it does not define our personal perceptive/cognitive environment.

LOL..nice try jeff
BUT MATE..that line..im quoting ..your re-quotibng
is DIRECT FROM..THE OXFORD journal..re-read it and weep

http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/01/23/cercor.bhs002

i did wonder why my guides asked me to rewrite the ABSTRACT
plus not accord the link..but that seems now obvious..or not..[my guides remain silent]..

so i will simply say..there is still honest science..
that dares say..it dont know..even if those lumping the lot together think..that..[have faith],.,that they do.

science isnt as infallible as the faithful to any old god-ree theory..are needing

to trust science as infallible..
or religious creeds..is only for those who NEED
groan-ups..to tell them what to think..what to do..for their faith.