Okay. So?
That there is nothing but matter though is easily refuted - consciousness, conscience, intelligence, logic, mathematics, love have no material existence.
This sentence could be easily picked apart (not that it's false, only that there is room for dangerous ambiguity), but why try? Who here claims that there is nothing but matter?
I know you think you are responding considerately to my post, so I hold no grudge. However, try pealing away a few more presumptions and read it again.
Part of the problem is buying into this heavily repeated accusation that creationist opponents must be materialists. I suppose there are some materialists, but I'm certainly not one. And trust me, the world of human thought is a lot richer than a simple creationist/materialist dichotomy.
Just do me the favor of taking my words in their simplest most literal meaning first.
Sorry bout that, it should have read DENY instead of SAYS.
Part of the problem is buying into this heavily repeated accusation that creationist opponents must be materialists. I suppose there are some materialists, but I'm certainly not one. And trust me, the world of human thought is a lot richer than a simple creationist/materialist dichotomy.
The statement below clearly implies your belief that everything is materialistic:
By contrary to our observations, I was referring to such notions as consciousness without a brain, vision without sense organs, actuation without matter or energy, and existence in a "universe" devoid of space and time.
That the non-material can be discerned from its effects on the material as art shows us gives proof that the immaterial is part of reality and can therefore be observed, studied and provide evidence for itself.