Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Age]

Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

But the 'religious ones' of 'science' embrace the impossible as well.

WHY those who are 'religious', or in other words have a belief, or a faith, (in) some thing, of which those of both the 'scientific and theological community' all have, embrace the impossible. For example, all of these people BELIEVE the words in the 'chosen books/literature', and which I find quite hilarious is that they BOTH agree and accept that the Universe began.

And, considering what the actual and irrefutable Fact is, here, that both the people of the scientific, and of the theological, religions BELIEVE (in) the EXACT SAME thing is VERY FUNNY to watch and observe.

That these, supposed, 'grown up' human beings could BELIEVE, and EMBRACE, the not just the theoretical impossible but ALSO the absolutely physically impossible idea of the whole Universe beginning from either nothing at all or something else, would be absolutely unimaginable, if it were not already FULLY understanding and knowing WHY these human beings are, EXACTLY, 'the way' that they are.

[Atla]

Atla, the only thing more absurd than your misunderstanding of science is the irony of invoking Jesus Christ in an attempt to insult someone. Let’s unpack this mess of a response.

First, your claim that I ascribed "omniscience" to science is laughably false. Science doesn’t deal in omniscience or absolutes—it deals in probabilities and evidence. That’s the point you clearly can’t grasp. When we lack evidence for something, we don’t declare it “impossible” with absolute certainty; we dismiss it as irrelevant until evidence suggests otherwise. This isn’t a flaw—it’s why science works. Contrast that with religion, which declares impossibilities and miracles without a shred of evidence.

Now, your assertion that “according to you anything is impossible if we don’t have substantial evidence for it” is a blatant misrepresentation. Here’s the real deal: science doesn’t deal with absolute impossibilities—it deals with what’s reasonable to believe based on the evidence at hand. If you want to claim something is possible—be it God, miracles, or Matrix-style trolling—you bear the burden of proof. Waving your hands and shouting “but what if” isn’t an argument; it’s philosophical filler.

So let me spell it out for you: science doesn’t claim to know everything. It refines its understanding based on evidence, which is infinitely more useful than religion’s baseless proclamations or your lazy hypotheticals. If you’re still clinging to “but maybe” as your rebuttal, congratulations—you’ve contributed nothing to the discussion except a showcase of your own intellectual floundering.

In short: read more, speculate less, and if you want to insult someone’s intelligence, make sure your argument isn’t the one falling apart.

I probably know more about science than you, genius.

Again: you gave the thread the title: "Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"

In the OP you write: "How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws?"

Again: how do you know if something is actually impossible, instead of just being unsupported by scientific evidence, without ascribing omniscience to science?

Here’s the real deal: science doesn’t deal with absolute impossibilities—it deals with what’s reasonable to believe based on the evidence at hand. If you want to claim something is possible—be it God, miracles, or Matrix-style trolling—you bear the burden of proof.

This isn't in English. You don't need proof for something for it to be possible.

[Age]

It's a question that never fails to fascinate and frustrate in equal measure. Why is it that religious adherents, who often champion their beliefs as rooted in truth, so vehemently reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview?

As long as this question is being asked from a Truly OPEN viewpoint and perspective, then all well and good. And, let 'us' not forget that 'religious adherents' also include those of the scientific community who do not have absolutely any faith nor belief in God, and/or in Gods claimed 'chosen words'. They just have faith and/or belief in the writer's 'chosen words', in scientific books or literature.

Some BELIEVE that some so-called "scientists" are more God-like, or have more FAITH in some "scientists" than they have in "jesus christ" or 'God', Itself. In fact some have so much faith and belief in the writers of scientific text that they will readily claim, when they are being questioned and/or challenged over what they BELIEVE is true, that 'it is written in the book. Therefore, it must be true'. Their God, "albert einsten" and such are BELIEVED (in) so much that just because 'that one' has 'said it', then this makes what 'is said', MUST BE true.

These 'followers' of 'scientific literature' are no less of FAITH than those 'followers' of 'theological literature'. ALL of 'these followers' are no more nor no less 'religious' than the other ones are.

Take determinism, for instance. Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws.

LOL But, it is ALSO claimed that 'science' tells you people that everything came from nothing, and expands into nothing.

Which is just as IMPOSSIBLE, and ABSURD, as some of the OTHER LIES you human beings TELL "yourselves".

Also, you are going to spend a great deal of your time here 'trying to' get others here to BELIEVE what you BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY true and right. Which obviously is that there is NO 'free will', and that there is ONLY 'determinism'.

Obviously you human beings CHOOSE 'your religions', and CHOOSE 'what religions' that you want to 'follow' and 'abide by.

There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.

ONCE AGAIN, you have CHOSEN to USE a definition of the phrase and term 'free will', which is an IMPOSSIBILITY to even exist, to begin with, and so that you can then 'try to' PERSUADE others here to 'FOLLOW' and 'ABIDE BY' some 'deterministic model' of 'the world' or 'the Universe'.

WHY do you not just come out and ADMIT. ' 'i', "bigmike", BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that there is 'determinism' ONLY, that there is NO 'free will' AT ALL, and that 'i' am NEVER going to OPEN to there being 'free will' EVER '?

And yet, so many religious doctrines cling to the idea of free will as if it’s a gift from their deity, a cornerstone of moral responsibility. But let’s face it: free will, as traditionally understood, is about as plausible as a flat Earth. It defies the very laws of physics and neuroscience.

How long are you going to keep USING a 'traditionally understood' terminology for, even when 'that terminology' is OBVIOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE and outdated?

Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist?

LOL it DOES NOT, and IS NOT, persist.

you are the ONLY one here who KEEPS bringing 'it' UP, here.

Not one single individual has claimed what you are here. But yet here you are KEEP CLAIMING that there are people who claim that a choice can be made that has had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING prior to it.

ONCE MORE "bigmike" there is NOT a human being who is making this claim here.

you are just INTRODUCING some thing that NO one has said NOR agreed with to just 'try to' make 'your BELIEF' that there is ONLY 'determinism' appear more credible.

Could it be that religious institutions thrive on the illusion of free will because it allows them to enforce moral codes, assign blame, and justify eternal rewards or punishments? After all, a deterministic universe leaves no room for sin, no room for divine judgment, and no room for the comforting, if delusional, notion that we control our destiny.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The deterministic Universe DOES leave room for these things. As has been ALREADY PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.

Let’s unpack this. How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws?'

Is this 'the' Universe, which in scientific literature it is CLAIMED that the whole Universe, Itself, BEGAN, or was BORN, from nothing, expands into nothing, and ENDS, or DIES?

If yes, then how do proponents of 'this religion' reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts, with the Reality that 'this Universe' is governed by eternal deterministic laws? For, OBVIOUSLY, 'deterministic laws', by definition, could NOT even begin, nor end.

Claiming that a BEGINNING, and/or ENDING, Universe is governed by 'deterministic laws' IS, at the least, a CONTRADICTION IN TERMS, and/or just an OXYMORON, itself.

Why do they resist scientific findings,

WHY are some so-called 'scientific findings' ABSOLUTELY ILLOGICAL in and of themselves?

like the absence of free will,

There is NO 'scientific finding' that FOUND that there is NO 'free will'

that challenge these beliefs?

NO one HAS TO have A BELIEF when they KNOW, for sure, some thing is True. So, absolutely EVERY 'BELIEF' that you human beings have is OPEN to being CHALLENGED.

If, however, one KNOWS some thing, for sure, then they have the irrefutable argument or proof for 'that thing'.

Do you have an irrefutable argument or proof for there being NO 'free will', if and when the term or phrase 'free will' is NOT being USED to describe some thing that could not possibly exist anyway?

And what does it say about the human condition that so many prefer comforting illusions to uncomfortable truths?

Well you are 'one' of those who prefers 'comforting illusions' to 'uncomfortable truths', so what does 'it' say about 'this condition', which you have, here?

I’d love to hear your thoughts—especially if you think there’s a way to bridge this gap between religious belief and scientific reality.

Have you SHOWN the steps that were taken in 'the scientific study', or within 'the scientific process', which led to the 'scientific finding' that there is NO 'free will'?

Or, could have 'this claim' just been another 'comforting illusion' of 'yours', here?

In fact, in what 'scientific literature', and under what 'scientific heading', did 'this scientific finding' that there is NO 'free will' ACTUALLY APPEAR, exactly?

[Atla]

Maybe the guy thinks that "impossible" means "implausible". Well it doesn't.

[BigMike]

Atla, the only thing more absurd than your misunderstanding of science is the irony of invoking Jesus Christ in an attempt to insult someone. Let’s unpack this mess of a response.

First, your claim that I ascribed "omniscience" to science is laughably false. Science doesn’t deal in omniscience or absolutes—it deals in probabilities and evidence. That’s the point you clearly can’t grasp. When we lack evidence for something, we don’t declare it “impossible” with absolute certainty; we dismiss it as irrelevant until evidence suggests otherwise. This isn’t a flaw—it’s why science works. Contrast that with religion, which declares impossibilities and miracles without a shred of evidence.

Now, your assertion that “according to you anything is impossible if we don’t have substantial evidence for it” is a blatant misrepresentation. Here’s the real deal: science doesn’t deal with absolute impossibilities—it deals with what’s reasonable to believe based on the evidence at hand. If you want to claim something is possible—be it God, miracles, or Matrix-style trolling—you bear the burden of proof. Waving your hands and shouting “but what if” isn’t an argument; it’s philosophical filler.

So let me spell it out for you: science doesn’t claim to know everything. It refines its understanding based on evidence, which is infinitely more useful than religion’s baseless proclamations or your lazy hypotheticals. If you’re still clinging to “but maybe” as your rebuttal, congratulations—you’ve contributed nothing to the discussion except a showcase of your own intellectual floundering.

In short: read more, speculate less, and if you want to insult someone’s intelligence, make sure your argument isn’t the one falling apart.

I probably know more about science than you, genius.

Again: you gave the thread the title: "Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"

In the OP you write: "How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws?"

Again: how do you know if something is actually impossible, instead of just being unsupported by scientific evidence, without ascribing omniscience to science?

"I Probably Know More About Science"? Then Act Like It

Atla, if you claim to "know more about science," then you should understand that the term "impossible" in this context refers to concepts that contradict established physical laws, not just those lacking evidence. Religion’s favorite tricks—miracles, divine interventions, and free will—don’t just lack evidence; they defy the deterministic framework supported by centuries of empirical data. That’s what makes them “impossible.”

Now, your obsession with “omniscience” is a straw man. Science doesn’t claim omniscience—it operates on falsifiable models that are constantly refined. When something contradicts every tested observation, we don’t need omniscience to dismiss it as impossible. We conclude, based on overwhelming evidence, that these claims are incompatible with reality until proven otherwise. That’s not “faith”; it’s critical thinking.

If you’re arguing that “we can’t know what’s truly impossible,” then congratulations—you’ve embraced a philosophical dead end. Science doesn’t wait for absolute proof to make progress, and neither should rational discourse. Stop hiding behind semantic nitpicking and answer the real question: where’s the evidence for these religious claims?

Without it, your argument is just empty rhetoric, and your appeal to “possibilities” is as unconvincing as the fairy tales you’re defending.

[Atla]

Atla, the only thing more absurd than your misunderstanding of science is the irony of invoking Jesus Christ in an attempt to insult someone. Let’s unpack this mess of a response.

First, your claim that I ascribed "omniscience" to science is laughably false. Science doesn’t deal in omniscience or absolutes—it deals in probabilities and evidence. That’s the point you clearly can’t grasp. When we lack evidence for something, we don’t declare it “impossible” with absolute certainty; we dismiss it as irrelevant until evidence suggests otherwise. This isn’t a flaw—it’s why science works. Contrast that with religion, which declares impossibilities and miracles without a shred of evidence.

Now, your assertion that “according to you anything is impossible if we don’t have substantial evidence for it” is a blatant misrepresentation. Here’s the real deal: science doesn’t deal with absolute impossibilities—it deals with what’s reasonable to believe based on the evidence at hand. If you want to claim something is possible—be it God, miracles, or Matrix-style trolling—you bear the burden of proof. Waving your hands and shouting “but what if” isn’t an argument; it’s philosophical filler.

So let me spell it out for you: science doesn’t claim to know everything. It refines its understanding based on evidence, which is infinitely more useful than religion’s baseless proclamations or your lazy hypotheticals. If you’re still clinging to “but maybe” as your rebuttal, congratulations—you’ve contributed nothing to the discussion except a showcase of your own intellectual floundering.

In short: read more, speculate less, and if you want to insult someone’s intelligence, make sure your argument isn’t the one falling apart.

I probably know more about science than you, genius.

Again: you gave the thread the title: "Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"

In the OP you write: "How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws?"

Again: how do you know if something is actually impossible, instead of just being unsupported by scientific evidence, without ascribing omniscience to science?

"I Probably Know More About Science"? Then Act Like It

Atla, if you claim to "know more about science," then you should understand that the term "impossible" in this context refers to concepts that contradict established physical laws, not just those lacking evidence. Religion’s favorite tricks—miracles, divine interventions, and free will—don’t just lack evidence; they defy the deterministic framework supported by centuries of empirical data. That’s what makes them “impossible.”

Now, your obsession with “omniscience” is a straw man. Science doesn’t claim omniscience—it operates on falsifiable models that are constantly refined. When something contradicts every tested observation, we don’t need omniscience to dismiss it as impossible. We conclude, based on overwhelming evidence, that these claims are incompatible with reality until proven otherwise. That’s not “faith”; it’s critical thinking.

If you’re arguing that “we can’t know what’s truly impossible,” then congratulations—you’ve embraced a philosophical dead end. Science doesn’t wait for absolute proof to make progress, and neither should rational discourse. Stop hiding behind semantic nitpicking and answer the real question: where’s the evidence for these religious claims?

Without it, your argument is just empty rhetoric, and your appeal to “possibilities” is as unconvincing as the fairy tales you’re defending.

The context is that we're on a philosophy forum, and of course here, contradicting established physical laws doesn't mean that something is impossible.

Hell, I don't think that would be an appropriate thing to say even on a science forum. "QM is impossible according to 19th century physics." In hindisght it's easy to make claims like that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Note: I live in an unstable, volcanically volatile region not far from the equator. Over the course of a decade I have singlehandedly kept my region safe from devastating eruptions, lightning fast, murderous lahar flows and shattering earthquakes, because of my weekly offering of a chicken into the fuming mouth of Galeras!

Don’t lecture me about causation! I prove how determinism can be circumvented through a feather-touch of applied intelligence!

[BigMike]

I probably know more about science than you, genius.

Again: you gave the thread the title: "Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"

In the OP you write: "How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws?"

Again: how do you know if something is actually impossible, instead of just being unsupported by scientific evidence, without ascribing omniscience to science?

"I Probably Know More About Science"? Then Act Like It

Atla, if you claim to "know more about science," then you should understand that the term "impossible" in this context refers to concepts that contradict established physical laws, not just those lacking evidence. Religion’s favorite tricks—miracles, divine interventions, and free will—don’t just lack evidence; they defy the deterministic framework supported by centuries of empirical data. That’s what makes them “impossible.”

Now, your obsession with “omniscience” is a straw man. Science doesn’t claim omniscience—it operates on falsifiable models that are constantly refined. When something contradicts every tested observation, we don’t need omniscience to dismiss it as impossible. We conclude, based on overwhelming evidence, that these claims are incompatible with reality until proven otherwise. That’s not “faith”; it’s critical thinking.

If you’re arguing that “we can’t know what’s truly impossible,” then congratulations—you’ve embraced a philosophical dead end. Science doesn’t wait for absolute proof to make progress, and neither should rational discourse. Stop hiding behind semantic nitpicking and answer the real question: where’s the evidence for these religious claims?

Without it, your argument is just empty rhetoric, and your appeal to “possibilities” is as unconvincing as the fairy tales you’re defending.

The context is that we're on a philosophy forum, and of course here, contradicting established physical laws doesn't mean that something is impossible.

Hell, I don't think that would be an appropriate thing to say even on a science forum. "QM is impossible according to 19th century physics." In hindisght it's easy to make claims like that.

"Contradicting Physical Laws Doesn't Mean Impossible"? Welcome to Nonsense 101

Atla, let’s get real. On a philosophy forum or otherwise, "contradicting established physical laws" is a valid basis for calling something impossible—in this universe. If you want to discuss philosophical hypotheticals, fine. But stop pretending they’re on par with empirical evidence or that they somehow rescue religion from its intellectual bankruptcy.

You bring up quantum mechanics as if it proves something profound. It doesn’t. Quantum mechanics didn’t "contradict" classical physics—it expanded on it, with evidence. Theories evolve when new data demands it, but this doesn’t mean we throw out every established principle because “what if.” QM didn’t emerge from wishful thinking or faith; it emerged from hard evidence that classical models couldn’t explain.

Here’s the difference you keep dodging: religious claims aren’t refinements of known laws—they flat-out deny them. Miracles, divine creation, and omnipotent beings aren’t just unsupported; they’re irreconcilable with the deterministic framework that governs observable reality. Until evidence says otherwise, they remain in the realm of impossibility.

So, no, Atla, we’re not rejecting groundbreaking discoveries because they "contradict" old ideas. We’re rejecting baseless, faith-driven nonsense that has zero evidence and no predictive power. If you think that’s the same thing, you’re confusing philosophy with fantasy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It seems quite clear to me that BigMike is certain that he has at his disposal an “ultimate explanatory model”. It is so rock-solid, so convincing, that he is sure that with it he can take on and fail all comers.

It seems obvious, to me anyways, that the science processes, and practical applications of science, are acutely powerful. It is quite difficult, even impossible, to assert to nearly any modern today that prayer and offering can stop (heh heh) a volcano from erupting.

It is directly in this sense, and in this field, that BigMike operates intellectually. He has in his hands an ultimate, reductive (intellectual) tool. Myself, I agree with his analysis of the power and practical relevance of science-method and even, within limits, of scientism.

However, I think we must examine BigMike’s spiel in another light while simultaneously examining, and supporting, the validity of the critique of absurd claims of some religious myths.

True, no one has been able to conclude that we cannot act in the sense proposed by the notion of free will. But one must ask what we stand to lose if such a predicate became universal intellectually. What is gained when the possibility of the realness of free will is conceptually undermined? And simultaneously what is lost?

When one poses those questions, and considers the entire sweep of intellectual history (not just the last 300-400 years when so much had been challenged and refuted), the potential losses of such a reductive BigMikean tool show themselves.

His “doctrines felt as facts” require of him that which he cannot, or will not do: submit his own radical and fortified assertions to a qualified first-rate metaphysician.

But what would that mean? It certainly would not involve a dismissal of the validity of science-method! But it could mean a nuanced grasp of what is alluded through other epistemological processes and their predicates.

Well, let’s contextualize BigMike’s program by inserting Christopher Dawson’s view of the loss of, or the destruction of, a conceptual pathway to levels of meaning non-accessible to scientistic reductionism:

'The Western mind has turned away from the contemplation of the absolute and eternal to the knowledge of the particular and the contingent. It has made man the measure of all things and has sought to emancipate human life from its dependence on the supernatural. Instead of the whole intellectual and social order being subordinated to spiritual principles, everỳ activity has declared its independence, and we see politics, economics, science and art organising themselves as autonomous kingdoms which owe no allegiance to any higher power.'

The issue of meaning and value (and transcendental conceptualization and truth understood metaphysically) in our intellectual lives, in our spiritual lives if you can go that far, has not been decided by the school of thought into which BM has ensconced himself.

He must be examined and seen through metaphysical lenses simply to understand his advent.

[Atla]

"I Probably Know More About Science"? Then Act Like It

Atla, if you claim to "know more about science," then you should understand that the term "impossible" in this context refers to concepts that contradict established physical laws, not just those lacking evidence. Religion’s favorite tricks—miracles, divine interventions, and free will—don’t just lack evidence; they defy the deterministic framework supported by centuries of empirical data. That’s what makes them “impossible.”

Now, your obsession with “omniscience” is a straw man. Science doesn’t claim omniscience—it operates on falsifiable models that are constantly refined. When something contradicts every tested observation, we don’t need omniscience to dismiss it as impossible. We conclude, based on overwhelming evidence, that these claims are incompatible with reality until proven otherwise. That’s not “faith”; it’s critical thinking.

If you’re arguing that “we can’t know what’s truly impossible,” then congratulations—you’ve embraced a philosophical dead end. Science doesn’t wait for absolute proof to make progress, and neither should rational discourse. Stop hiding behind semantic nitpicking and answer the real question: where’s the evidence for these religious claims?

Without it, your argument is just empty rhetoric, and your appeal to “possibilities” is as unconvincing as the fairy tales you’re defending.

The context is that we're on a philosophy forum, and of course here, contradicting established physical laws doesn't mean that something is impossible.

Hell, I don't think that would be an appropriate thing to say even on a science forum. "QM is impossible according to 19th century physics." In hindisght it's easy to make claims like that.

"Contradicting Physical Laws Doesn't Mean Impossible"? Welcome to Nonsense 101

Atla, let’s get real. On a philosophy forum or otherwise, "contradicting established physical laws" is a valid basis for calling something impossible—in this universe. If you want to discuss philosophical hypotheticals, fine. But stop pretending they’re on par with empirical evidence or that they somehow rescue religion from its intellectual bankruptcy.

You bring up quantum mechanics as if it proves something profound. It doesn’t. Quantum mechanics didn’t "contradict" classical physics—it expanded on it, with evidence. Theories evolve when new data demands it, but this doesn’t mean we throw out every established principle because “what if.” QM didn’t emerge from wishful thinking or faith; it emerged from hard evidence that classical models couldn’t explain.

Here’s the difference you keep dodging: religious claims aren’t refinements of known laws—they flat-out deny them. Miracles, divine creation, and omnipotent beings aren’t just unsupported; they’re irreconcilable with the deterministic framework that governs observable reality. Until evidence says otherwise, they remain in the realm of impossibility.

So, no, Atla, we’re not rejecting groundbreaking discoveries because they "contradict" old ideas. We’re rejecting baseless, faith-driven nonsense that has zero evidence and no predictive power. If you think that’s the same thing, you’re confusing philosophy with fantasy.

Fine, quote me saying or implying that "they’re on par with empirical evidence or that they somehow rescue religion from its intellectual bankruptcy". Or stfu.

[BigMike]

Fine, quote me saying or implying that "they’re on par with empirical evidence or that they somehow rescue religion from its intellectual bankruptcy". Or stfu.

"Fine, Quote Me"? Happy to Oblige, Atla

Atla, your repeated attempts to split hairs and dodge responsibility for your own implications are as transparent as they are tiresome. Let’s review: you’ve gone out of your way to argue that contradicting established physical laws doesn’t mean something is “impossible.” By doing so, you’ve opened the door for religious claims to sneak into the conversation under the guise of “philosophical possibilities.”

You’re playing coy, but your intent is clear: you’re creating a false equivalence between speculative hypotheticals and the rigorous frameworks of empirical science. Whether you explicitly said “they’re on par with evidence” or not, your entire line of reasoning rests on granting baseless religious claims a credibility they don’t deserve. That’s the intellectual backdoor you’re trying to leave open.

So, no, I won’t "stfu." If you want to play semantic games and feign innocence, go ahead, but it’s obvious what you’re doing. Philosophical hand-waving doesn’t make divine miracles, omnipotent gods, or other religious nonsense any less absurd—or impossible.

Pro tip: if you don’t want your arguments dismantled, try making better ones.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Important to notice and consider that BigMike’s contributions began here in the politics section as a set of political and social recommendations which have more in common with applied anthropology than with strict science matters.

Also important: pay attention to how the brewing meltdowns (about who is right and who is wrong) unfold. These seemingly intellectual differences also have a (more hidden) psychological element. In my view, not entirely conclusive, the real generator of irreconcilable differences has directly to do with loss of the larger explanatory models.

BM’s explanatory model, for him, offers a psychological advantage. His “conclusions” allow for a sort of release from tension; a clearing up of unresolved “mysteries” about nature’s existence and, naturally, our own being and awareness here.

Explaining things … he can explain away.

[Atla]

Fine, quote me saying or implying that "they’re on par with empirical evidence or that they somehow rescue religion from its intellectual bankruptcy". Or stfu.

"Fine, Quote Me"? Happy to Oblige, Atla

Atla, your repeated attempts to split hairs and dodge responsibility for your own implications are as transparent as they are tiresome. Let’s review: you’ve gone out of your way to argue that contradicting established physical laws doesn’t mean something is “impossible.” By doing so, you’ve opened the door for religious claims to sneak into the conversation under the guise of “philosophical possibilities.”

You’re playing coy, but your intent is clear: you’re creating a false equivalence between speculative hypotheticals and the rigorous frameworks of empirical science. Whether you explicitly said “they’re on par with evidence” or not, your entire line of reasoning rests on granting baseless religious claims a credibility they don’t deserve. That’s the intellectual backdoor you’re trying to leave open.

So, no, I won’t "stfu." If you want to play semantic games and feign innocence, go ahead, but it’s obvious what you’re doing. Philosophical hand-waving doesn’t make divine miracles, omnipotent gods, or other religious nonsense any less absurd—or impossible.

Pro tip: if you don’t want your arguments dismantled, try making better ones.

Yeah except you forgot to quote me where I actually said these things. Or have you been completely strawmanning me all along?

[Skepdick]

It case you haven't figured it out nothing within the cosmos is permanent and neither is the cosmos itself.

Religion is thoroughly subjective; you can invent any bullshit crap you want and call it religion. In science you submit to it completely; it's the teacher and we're the students if you want to discover the reality beyond any of our man-made god conceptions.

I realize this is a difficult concept for a theist to understand or accept.

It's a surefire way to get stuck in the latrine of philosophy.

On this site, it's been in the latrine for the longest time thanks to prolific posters of shit like you.

And the thread has devolved to poop-slinging thanks to the monkey that is you.

I guess civility is too much to ask from a hairless ape with a handful of misfiring braincells

[Alexis Jacobi]

Let’s review: you’ve gone out of your way to argue that contradicting established physical laws doesn’t mean something is “impossible.” By doing so, you’ve opened the door for religious claims to sneak into the conversation under the guise of “philosophical possibilities.”

Again, what BM wishes to assert is that the science-model he holds to undermines or refutes what he contemptuously refers to as “religious claims” that have to do with modes of perception and understanding outside and beyond the strict causal picture to which BM is dogmatically committed to.

It is hard then to retort that, in the realm of actual human experience, our lived experience, that we notice confounding synchronicities, but more importantly the presence, or the intrusion and insistence of problematical meanings — which are best expressed in poetic allusion.

In a time when domineering, absolutist, religious metanarraratives indeed collapsed, it stands to reason that a more comprehensive, a more final explanatory model would then come to prominence and also dominate the intellectual scene.

Each mode — for example that of science-explanation and that of mystical or intuitive explanation — must each be handled with genuine caution and care. But who can do this?

Some continue in the vein outlined by Bacon:

'Undoubtedly a superficial tincture of philosophy may incline the mind to atheism, yet a farther knowledge brings it back to religion; for on the threshold of philosophy, where second causes appear to absorb the attention, some oblivion of the highest cause may ensue; but when the mind goes deeper, and sees the dependence of causes and the works of Providence, it will easily perceive, according to the mythology of the poets, that the upper link of Nature's chain is fastened to Jupiter's throne.'