Yes, johnheininger, “the real world”.

<<It's time you joined the real world! Dennett and his atheistic fellow travelers are up to his ears in atheistic SCIENTISM, masquerading as science.>>

I’m not the one here who has an invisible friend that is so insecure it demands to be worshipped and worries about what consenting adults do in their beds while leaving millions to starve to death. But hey, at least he helps you to find your car keys when you need them, right?

You can repeat and capitalise the word “scientism” all you like, it’s not going to make it any more of a legitimate concept.

<<There is a major problem with this mindless atheistic religious premise: ...>>

The irony of labelling atheism (or any non-religious methodologies/worldviews) a “religion”, as a slur, is always lost on you folk, isn't it?. Like “scientism”, it is emotive guff used to caricaturise beliefs that you perceive as a threat or an affront to the decreasingly-significant religious beliefs in a modern world.

<<The scientific revolution was founded on the theistic premise that the universe is both rational and intelligible, because a rational and intelligent God created it.>>

Oh yes, the ‘orderly creator’. So Christians’ belief in an orderly creator (it’s never explained why order for its own sake could not be enough) accidentally inspires some in pre-Darwinian times to investigate this orderly ‘creation’. Big deal. That says nothing about the truth of the Christian religion. Only that those who believed in it held a belief that, by pure fluke, turned out to be beneficial.

As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

<<Without this initial premise it is impossible to do science.>>

There seems to be plenty of atheist scientists (who, unsurprisingly, make up the majority of scientists, by the way) that seem to manage just fine without the god element.

I’m sorry you feel so threatened by the ever-decreasing relevance of your religion. The plummeting numbers in church attendance probably don’t help either. But labelling naturalism a “religion”, in a stroke of unwitting irony, doesn’t help your case.

Science cannot explain the laws of nature because science is limited to explaining things that exist in space-time. Space-time presupposes these laws (according to science). This is not a “gap” that science may conceivably traverse but something beyond science.

The question is whether we are pure products of space-time, or our bodies are the means by which souls experience choice.
In the latter case, the laws of nature would offer an environment of cause and effect, availing each of us the opportunity to learn the meaning of the remembrance of God by observing the results of our actions and reflecting on our intentions. God wants for us to love Him, not His creation, and to do so voluntary.

“It is by means of soul that man is the best of creations as it is by means of soul that man acquires knowledge of God and His attributes and by no other organs of the body. It is by means of the soul that man can go to the nearness of God and make efforts to realise Him. So soul is the king of the body and its different organs are its servants to carry out its orders and commands. It is accepted by God when it remains free from things other than God. When it is attached to things other than God, it drifts away from God. It is the soul which will be asked and rebuked. It becomes fortunate if it is purified and cleansed, and it becomes unfortunate if it is kept impure. It is the knowledge of the soul which is the root of the knowledge of God. When man does not know himself he does not know God” Ghazzali, Book of Destructive Evils, Chapter 1, Ihya ulum-id-din (The Book of Religious Learnings)

Dear Grateful,

I am impressed by Ghazzali. Thank you.

Grateful,

How do you know the laws of nature (whichever one's you're referring to there) predate the big bang?

<<Science cannot explain the laws of nature because science is limited to explaining things that exist in space-time.>>

No-one knows what predates the big bang. The term 'Laws of Nature' is also very ambiguous. It could refer to scientific laws, or even Natural Law.

<<Space-time presupposes these laws (according to science). This is not a “gap” that science may conceivably traverse but something beyond science.>>

Either way, it’s not a gap you can just plonk your god in without any evidence and then assume that you’ve provided a useful explanation.

<<The question is whether we are pure products of space-time, or our bodies are the means by which souls experience choice.>>

Okay, but you still haven’t demonstrated that souls are required for free will or how exactly they perform this function given the dilemma that brain injuries present.

Here’s another hypothetical: what if two people were to swap brains? Forget for the moment that such an operation isn’t yet possible. Let’s pretend that it’s possible and that two people have a legitimate reason for doing it. Do those people’s souls follow the brains, or stay with the bodies?

<<God wants for us to love Him, not His creation, and to do so voluntary.>>

And if we don’t, then we suffer for eternity. Compulsory love. That’s not very voluntary.

Yuyutsu "Dear Grateful,

I am impressed by Ghazzali. Thank you."

Until recently, it has been difficult to find a decent translation. There is better translation of the passage here on p2: http://www.ghazali.org/books/skillie.pdf. I took it from this website: http://www.ghazali.org/2015/09/ihya/

For a recent and reliable translation of the complete 4 book set of Ihlya ulum id din go here: https://www.fonsvitae.com/Home/tabid/38/Default.aspx

There are other spiritaul masters: Ibn 'Ata'allah ,Imam al-Haddad , Ibn 'Arabi,Rumi. Look up Abul Hasan Ali ash-Shadhili and Shadhili Tariqa
salaams

Yuyutsu & others

This 3 min video indicates how Al ghazal went sort spiritual truth

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OjL6cUZXnI4

I'm trying to stimulate your curiosuty because in aL ghazali you'll find the "proof of islam". Understanding why leads one to the sorts of questions and issues we've been discussing.

Here is a good intro

http://lostislamichistory.com/al-ghazali/