= new reply since forum marked as read
Some believe that all answers to all questions can be found through the application of logic and scientific method. I personally am a big fan of logic and science. It has brought us the high quality of medicine, computer technology, accounting, aeronautics, and personal appliances we all love.
Does it answer the question "Will I get to meet my friend who was murdered again after I die?" No, science doesn't answer that question. Religon answers that question ("perhaps"
. Only my passing from this earth will answer that question for certain.
especially if the problem is "what is the square root of -1?"
Some would say there is an answer. There is no square root for -1; the answer is "null". Just because there is a square root for 1 does not mean there is a square root for -1. Others have used "i" as a supposition - a faith based answer to an unknowable. In this instance, we suppose the answer to be "i" because the answer works.
If you think searching for an better answer than "i" is worthwhile, by all means do so. The mathbook says the answer is "i". That's good enough for me.
...and now, on to why we didn't decend from monkeys
My flat screen television is broken. I could pray for divine intervention. That would be acting on faith alone. In all probability, my television would remain broken. I could go to the internet, and look up technical specifications for my television, or the number of a good repair technician, I am likely to find an answer that already exists to my question.
I could combine faith and practicality: I could find a flat screen television repairman at my church, mosque, synagouge, or temple. 
Some people want answers to questions that cannot be answered scientifically. People often look to religon to answer questions such as "Why does Dick Cheney live on with a donor heart while my Uncle died of pneumonia at 20?"
Again, I'm attempting to answer the question put forth by the OP. I'm not attempting to advocate any particular faith position here.
Go ahead, tell me what reductio ad absurdum means. 
on the definition of 'knowledge'. Experiencing 'now' as is and happens without relating the moment of 'now' to other moments (in past or future) is esperiencing, and what Aristotle calls gnosis. Epistemic (again, in aristotelian terminology) or scientific knowledge involves drawing empirical conclusions and generalisations from comparisons between more than on moment.
Analytical knowledge of making strict divisions and definitions over phenomenological world does not have a good analytical definition of phenomenology of awareness and/or consciousness to begin with, which raises the question what kind of "knowledge" is the claim that they reduce to brain and brain alone.
From what we have learned from anesthesiology shows e.g. that when neo-cortex has been inactivated, patients (deeper brain areas? what?) can and do still react to environment and verbal instructions, but do not have access to conscious memories from those events. So was it "you" responding to environment during that period of inactive neo-cortex, or are "you" just the property of consciouss memories? What is the good analytical definition of "you"?
And what if evidence from NDE and memories of other lives is not outright rejected, but accepted as relevant for study of consciousness and awareness?
However it's given you the opportunity to sling some more mud and feel important, so I expect you're happy.
You know, for someone so enlightened you're incredibly mean-spirited.
Two conceptualizations of what is considered the idea of a leprechaun are thereby connected by both being called the same name. Being grouped under the same moniker is a connection.
(or the glbt community or the black community or women).
Total troll
