Ah, I see one more crucial point. I think it's the most important point to get clear in ALL your articles.
You write that physicalists believe that only matter and force is real. I know that's what they think. But if they are trained physicists who believe this, then they don't understand physics. And yes, another shocking statement, I'm including Stephen Hawking and nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg among those non-comprehending physicists.
Once again, Bernardo may be the best on this topic. He has an analytic idealism course which is free on YouTube. Look at #1 and 2 (the opening 15 minutes or so of #1 may be quite difficult at first, but stick with it and focus on the latter half and then #2).
Essentially what he says is this:
1. When empirical science was being developed several centuries ago, a division of labor sprung up - the church got the mind, soul, - qualitative experience, for the most part. Science got quantities, what can be measured.
2. Scientists forgot ALL they get at the end of their analysis conscious experience is numbers. They ALSO forgot that EVERYTHING they study BEGINS with conscious experience (hmmm, sounds like neutral monism, but it's not. It's THROUGHLY agnostic. There may be only non-conscious "stuff", there may be God, but science as the study of the quantitative aspects of our qualitative experience has NO evidence either way. NONE. This is almost the most important point but it gets worse.
3. Scientists like Dawkins, Weinberg, Crick, Hawking, Sagan, de Grasse Tyson, etc, ROUTINELY confuse two very different things (listen carefully because this is the crux of it:
(a) phenomenal experience of matter, energy, magnetism, sound, light, gravity, even color!
(b) the numerical, purely contentless, abstract, purely conceptual equations that are used to define matter, energy, magnetism, sound, etc
So take the common truism that the phenomenal experience of the moon disappears when you're not looking at the moon. Einstein (and so many internet debunkers) are horrified at what appears to be nonsense because they're confused about (a) and (b).
Of COURSE whatever is THERE is still there when you're not looking. But physicalism says the entire experienced universe is constructed in our brain, so obviously the phenomenal moon can't be anywhere except in our brains - or the brains of other living creatures.
The problem is, they say this, they repeat it endlessly, but then when they talk physicalism they forget it and say, "Of course THE MOON" is there (and they're still talking about the phenomenal moon)
I know this is HARD to get through words which is why I'm working with a physicist and will later this year or some time in 2023 create brief videos about it.
Summary:
1. Scientists deal ONLY in quantities - basically, numerical relations, all of which are derived from conscious experience.
2. Neuroscientists tell us the entire experienced universe is a construct of our "physical" brains (which themselves are also an image constructed by - something)
3. What exists, according to physicalism, apart from this construction is utterly unknown - we'll call it "X."
4. Science, as currently conducted, only deals with numbers derived from conscious experience, therefore it can not tell us ANYTHING about the nature of "X." It CANNOT tell us if X is conscious or unconscious sentient or non sentient, alive or dead, intelligent or non intelligent. When Dawkins tells you the universe is pitilessly indifferent, he may be right for all I care, but he is speaking as a scientist, and science cannot tell you ANYTHING about this claim, which is why I say Dawkins, like so many others, doesn't really understand the basic nature or limitations of science AT ALL.
If you get these last 4 points, it utterly ends any discussion about scientific evidence against God or - as I've said to you before, Gerald, FOR God.
if you want evidence for God, and you understand what God means, it is self evident. There is nothing in the universe more obvious and more irrefutable from the standpoint of being "self evident" then the existence of the Infinite Reality.
But you have to understand what God means, and it seems that vastly vastly fewer theologians, priests, ministers, rabbis, etc (gurus too - Sadhguru, for example) have even the most minimal comprehension of what "God" means as compared to scientists who don't comprehend the foundations of science.