Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

How do scientists get started? They GUESS it! Now, what venerable sir in the video doesn't say is that a guess is a proposition, and that a conclusion is also a proposition. How do you tell one kind of proposition apart from the other? No, you cannot detect the distinction physically. You can only define it logically.

Science became possible when the philosophical work of logical distinctions had been done, not the other way round. Without knowing the difference between the guess and the conclusion, nobody would know if they are guessing things, drawing conclusions, or beating around the bush, but logical people know the difference.

1. Ask question--How kill woolly mammoth?
2. Formulate hypothesis--Use sharp stone on end of stick, make many holes in mammoth.
3. Perform experiment--We make 30 holes in mammoth. 
4. Collect data--Woolly mammoth dead.
5. Draw conclusions--Mammoth good food. 

Your conclusion does nothing to answer the first question. Hence you were not following the scientific method. Also, you overlooked the reasonable cautious alternative hypothesis that puts a serious check on the experiment:

1. Ask question--How kill woolly mammoth?
2. Formulate hypothesis--Use sharp stone on end of stick, make many holes in mammoth.
3. Perform experiment--We make 30 holes in mammoth. 
4. Collect data--Woolly mammoth dead.
5. Draw conclusions--Mammoth good food. 

So simple, a caveman could do it.  (A little levity never hurt anyone)

Your conclusion does nothing to answer the first question. Hence you were not following the scientific method. Also, you overlooked the reasonable cautious alternative hypothesis that puts a serious check on the experiment:

6.  Consequences-Hair in soup.

The scientific process doesn't start with a guess and it doesn't necessarily have to start with a question.  There are many routes into the process—from serendipity (e.g. being hit on the head by the proverbial apple), to concern over a practical problem (e.g. finding a new treatment for diabetes), to a technological development (e.g. the launch of a more advanced telescope)—and scientists often begin an investigation by plain old poking around, tinkering, brainstorming, trying to make some new observations, chatting with colleagues about an idea, or just doing some reading.

[Scientific] ideas are inherently tentative, but as they cycle through the process of science again and again and are tested and retested in different ways, we become increasingly confident in them.

Here at first you boldly contradict Feynman, who happened to be an actual scientist.

The obvious proof is that this analysis cannot be performed and the conclusion cannot be arrived at by means of archeological findings, newest telescope or microscope, or a series of business negotiations. These conclusions are arrived at by means of consciously directed logical reasoning, and only that.

now that science has the final conclusion to the ultimate question

...and now that science has the final conclusion to the ultimate question, philosophy is at wit's end....

So, let's get back on track: Where do you place math? Did you read the article?

The same way, instead of thinking of myself as I am now, I think of myself as I used to be, am, and will be, and not just as committed to this body here, but including pre- and afterlife. Simple.

Therefore a spiritual person feels the urge to answer these questions: Wherein does the dot/line/rectangle/solid/hypersolid move and why? Who says there's movement/transformation? The answer is consciousness, who has causal space as one of its aspects. When the mathematician says, "The dot moves..." he is presupposing consciousness as the observer.

This is a logically necessary presupposition.

Inert matter, atomic or otherwise, construed as devoid of consciousness, cannot have causal powers, whereas consciousness devoid of matter can have it just fine.

And that's all there is to matter. Instead of making God unnecessary, the scientific conclusion is that God is omnipresent as all-pervading spirit, the essence of every thing and the soul of every being.

You, as a philosopher, take simple things to the extreme.

PS Oakdale, instead of constant destructive criticism, why not set out an ontological model of your own too?

The scales of temperature lend themselves to less frivolous thoughts. Degrees Fahrenheit and degrees Celsius are proportional in size, five to nine, but they count up and down from different zero points. The bottomless negatives in these scales make no sense below -273º C, or -459.4º F, because at that point there is no heat at all; no movement of molecules. The Kelvin scale takes that point as zero and counts upward only, thus 0º K = -273º C.

What I find interesting, then, is that we can nevertheless devise bottomless scales of temperature that do make sense at all points. Thus we might take our zero as the old 0º C, and our 1 as the old 1º C, but then we might take our upward degrees as progressively larger than the Celsius degrees, and our descending ones as progressively smaller. Specifically, having taken our first degree above zero as 1º C, we might inflate our next degree by the slight factor of 1/273, and the next by that factor twice over, and so on up, while correspondingly shrinking all degrees from zero downward. The general formula is this:

What is interesting about this is that it shows the existence or nonexistence of a bottom temperature to be a question not of physics but merely of conventional measurement, even though the presence or absence of heat is a matter of physical fact. Our novel scale squeezes infinitely many degrees between 0º C and 0º K. It is a logarithmic scale. Or, we could retort, the usual scales are logarithmic relative to it.
A similar trick can be played on the measurement of time, for the comfort of people (not me, not you) who puzzle about what could have been going on before the Big Bang. By switching to a logarithmic scale, we can push the Big Bang back infinitely far, thereby declaring that there was always a world and never the Bang. Steven Weinberg's first three minutes expand to half an eternity. Scientific theory carries over intact, translated into the new units. But the translation calls for a compensatory rescaling of spatial measures, with the unwelcome result that past sizes are inflated and future ones are deflated. Atoms of the remote past take on cosmic proportions

But I've lost track of the main question: What's the problem with atheism?

One simple answer is that it's -on the model of Christianity- become evangelical…

Also, keep in mind:
It's not your fault that you're an intellectual wimp.

The above is mostly cold, hard logic that shows in relief why your deterministic reductionism is incoherent.
Don't you agree?