Empirical evidence

First off, "truth" is a vague and meaningless concept to most people. I like to be practical, so I'll say I'm looking for "the best explanation of what I experience." The best may not be perfect, but it's better to admit that than to have "faith" that some other vaguely defined explanation is in fact the end all be all perfect answer to everything (e.g. God is the answer to everything). Having said that,
empirical evidence and scientific methodologies in general are simply the most reliable way to arrive at an accurate description of the world. It's not so much that science always completely explains everything, but more that every other means of knowing has been shown throughout history to be less reliable. For example, "go with your gut feeling" is advice I've heard several times from pastors and the like, but there's no real reason I can think of why this might be a better plan than "think it over with your brain".

So my question to Berto, and anyone else, is this: Besides empirical evidence, meaning based on your senses, what other evidence is there to consider that has ever been shown to be reliable?

And to be pre-emptive: I'm not just talking about "what you can put in a test tube". Anything you can sense and objectively evaluate counts.
"What about love? Your cold empirical science can never explain love." Tell me what love is and I'll explain it to you. I think love is a name that we have for a certain collection of feelings and desires that exist because they are useful for the survival of our species. Think it's something more? What EXACTLY is there to it that's more than that?

Why am I doing this?

In response to Phil's excellent question, I say this: I'm doing this blog for 3 reasons. First, I still have a small shred of hope that someone will actually have a meaningful response to my objections. Second, it really sucks to realize there's nothing more to life, but still wonder if I might be wrong. So, by hearing all the best arguments I can for Christianity, and finding them lacking, I reassure myself. Finally, I love a good debate. So don't take anything personally unless I specifically single you out for ridicule and make fun of your name or something.

The soul

An example to get things started. I claim the soul, an eternal, non-physical entity, cannot possibly exist in the sense of being the essense of a person, because all the essential attributes of a person are known to be the result of the brain, a physical, finite system. I ask what else there is to a person that can be meaningfully described. The apologist says "That's a good question, I'm not sure what the answer is, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. We're dealing with something bigger than we can understand here." So, is that a good response? Where can we go from here? The answer is we have to take a step back.

Before an issue or claim can be debated in any useful fashion, we have to clearly specify what we are claiming. In the example, the claim is that people have a soul that lives on after death, a basic tenet of the Christian faith. This sounds nice, but what exactly does it mean? What is a soul? All that can be said is that it is something that is somehow associated with our physical body and brain and that somehow embodies some important aspect of who we are, what aspect we aren't sure. Is it our memory? No, that's in our brain. Our emotions? No, those are chemically based. Our intellect? Nope, that's a neural network. We're left with a nebulous concept. Here's a well defined concept: memory. It is a physical representation of abstract data that results from our brain processing raw input. Emotions: a physical state characterized by specific levels of certain chemicals in the brain and by patterns of electrical activity. The list goes on. When you take away the parts of yourself that are explained by your brain (which will be eaten by worms when you die), what do you have left? Nothing, which is exactly what you become when you die. Saying your soul lives on sounds nice, but doesn't really mean anything, and is therefore pointless.

why this blog

the point of this blog is to discuss my various issues with christianity, from the incoherent beliefs and impossible postulates to the meaningless obscurisms. my main frustration at this point is that, no matter how obviously inconsistent or contradictory some aspect of the christian faith is, the christian apologist can simply plead ignorance, make some reference to how god is bigger than we can understand, and rest his case. i think the first order of business should be to determine when such an argument can legitimately be used, and when it can't.