Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle
But assuming science can or will answer all things is no less a position of faith than any religion.
I think you're starting to go in circles. The naturalistic assumption is that should there be something that transcends our methods of investigation and observation, that something will in turn be accountable to other logical, non-contradictory registers. The theistic claim is that there is something out there which is not accountable to anything at all. I don't wish to negate this claim outright, but I simply don't see any good grounds or reason to believe in it, nor have you provided any. (Not to mention that it overlooks a rather important contradiction - that of employing reason to posit something outside reason).
And yes, I've gone through the critique - the first half of it anyway, the rest will have to wait until I have some free time again.
Not really sure how it's relevant to what you're saying though.