that's not really a counter to kant, that's more saying you prefer empiricism to kantian idealism as a means of ascertaining "triuth."  what is truth?  subjective or objective?  i think kant would argue that even a widely held truth is still truth colored by human perception and thus ultimately subjective.  i'm pretty sure the scientific method was the very thing kant was criticizing.  how does the scientific method get us beyond the limitations of our perception that kant observes?  is there really such a thing as true objectivity, i.e., "pure reason," untouched by any sort of pre-conceived notions?  are kant's posited "limitations" of reason fallacious?  if not, how can one really speak in terms of universals at all?

i wasn't implying heisenberg's principle was supernatural.  i just recall dr. hawking making a comment in "brief history" that the uncertainty principle makes the idea of a deterministic universe impossible.  while this doesn't bode well for theists (of a certain stripe anyhow), it also doesn't bode well for the omnipotence of human reason, which during the enlightenment was taken by many thinkers as a given.  i don't propose you or your colleagues take it as a given, i just thought i'd touch on the issue.

"Mine is the placement of modern religion next to ancient religion in terms of status. They are equally valid in their assertions and explanations."

that's very interesting, in that it's the exact opposite of what nietzsche wishes to accomplish, particularly in "the birth of tragedy" and "the gay science."

as for the origins of the universe, i'm afraid i have no astrophysicists handy, but i'm not interested in how it "was."  i only wanted a clarification of sapient's remark.  of course you cannot provide that.