Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

That guy has charm and self-awareness in equal amounts. Quite astounding.

What was that?

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, this back-and-forth has reached a point of diminishing returns.

That sounds like a you-problem. You can't get any returns on a bad investment like scientism.

I’ve given you ample opportunity to articulate a coherent critique of science and determinism, but instead, you’ve resorted to circular semantics, category errors, and a fixation on “functional information” that adds nothing substantive to the discussion.

Q.E.D What return on investment can anyone expect trying to educate a fool? He can't even grasp the substance.

Your refusal to acknowledge the foundational principles of conservation laws while simultaneously claiming to "use them" is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.

I made it explicitly clear that conservation laws do not apply to me. Yes - I use them. I use many things. That doesn't mean I am subject to my instruments.

Your insistence that physics cannot address abstract constructs like functionality or meaning is a misdirection, not a counterargument.

That's because I am not interested in arguing with a fool. I offered you facts. Facts that physics cannot explain or account for.

Make of them what you will.

Physics explains how the universe operates; it doesn’t need to validate your subjective notions of “functionality” to remain valid.

Does it? Your brain is part of the universe. Why can't physics explain how your brain is capable of distinguishing between functioning and non-functioning entities? How is it that your brain can do things physics can't?

Almost as if physics doesn't apply to human thought. Or something.

I’ve invested more time than this conversation deserves, and your rhetorical tactics—designed to obfuscate rather than clarify—have made it clear this isn’t a debate in good faith.

You deserve exactly 0 time from anyone. Consider this a charity case.

So, congratulations: you’ve earned a spot on my ignore list. Enjoy arguing with yourself.

That's one way to maintain an echochamber of ignorance. Silence anyone who sees your religion for what it is.

With that know-it-all attitude of yours everyone in your life probably ignores you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

My sense is that a great deal is lost when one invests so heavily in reductive scientism. This does in no sense invalidate science processes and their applications of course.

I wonder if you have further thought on what is to be gained or what can be gained by an expansion of knowledge and contemplation beyond the limited confines of reductive ‘scientism’?

[Atla]

That guy has charm and self-awareness in equal amounts. Quite astounding.

I'm memorizing one of his speeches right now, going to use it as a long pick up line. Never seen anything like it.

[FlashDangerpants]

That guy has charm and self-awareness in equal amounts. Quite astounding.

I'm memorizing one of his speeches right now, going to use it as a long pick up line. Never seen anything like it.

Alright, Atla, you make a compelling point with this astute observation. Let's really drill into this, carefully going step by step until we nail it.

[Walker]

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.

Seeing as how philosophy is an intellectual exercise in abstraction, we can say without a doubt that anything is possible … if the conditions exist. This applies to the physical world (realm) and to relationships of man with people, places, things and thoughts.

In other words, machine-powered flight has always existed within infinite potentiality and it always will, however the manifestation of machine-powered flight was a long-time coming, and that’s because the necessary elements, in combination, had yet to appear to create that condition.

In other words, nothing is impossible ...except when the sentence is used to equate nothing with emptiness, seeing as how emptiness is the fullness of infinite potentiality without even a thought for limitation and categorization.

[BigMike]

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.

Seeing as how philosophy is an intellectual exercise in abstraction, we can say without a doubt that anything is possible … if the conditions exist. This applies to the physical world (realm) and to relationships of man with people, places, things and thoughts.

In other words, machine-powered flight has always existed within infinite potentiality and it always will, however the manifestation of machine-powered flight was a long-time coming, and that’s because the necessary elements, in combination, had yet to appear to create that condition.

In other words, nothing is impossible ...except when the sentence is used to equate nothing with emptiness, seeing as how emptiness is the fullness of infinite potentiality without even a thought for limitation and categorization.

Walker, your post is a masterclass in saying a lot of words without actually saying anything. Let’s unpack this meandering abstraction about "infinite potentiality."

Yes, machine-powered flight was "possible" in the sense that the physical principles for it existed long before we understood or utilized them. But guess what? Those principles are rooted in physics—hard, testable, deterministic laws—not some metaphysical fluff about "infinite potentiality." The manifestation of flight wasn’t waiting on philosophical musings; it was waiting on science, engineering, and evidence-based progress.

Then there’s this gem: “Nothing is impossible… except when the sentence is used to equate nothing with emptiness.” What does that even mean? It’s the kind of circular nonsense that pretends to be profound while actively avoiding clarity. Emptiness isn’t “the fullness of infinite potentiality”; it’s emptiness—defined by the absence of matter, energy, or function. Dressing it up with philosophical gibberish doesn’t make it meaningful.

Here’s the reality: science deals with what’s physically possible and testable. It doesn’t waste time on abstract "potentialities" unless they can be observed, measured, and brought into reality. If you want to argue that everything is "possible," great—but it’s irrelevant until there’s evidence. Otherwise, it’s just another vague thought experiment disconnected from any practical or intellectual value.

So, if your goal was to bridge the gap between religious belief and scientific reality, you’ve failed spectacularly. Science delivers results; “infinite potentiality” delivers word salad. Let’s keep the conversation grounded in reality, where the real work happens.

[Walker]

Big Mikey:

The conditions that define your grounded physics don't exist everywhere in the universe. Besides, considering that science cannot answer fundamental questions of the universe, and must create fudge factors as big as the moon, such as dark energy, to make the equations work, then we can conclude that neither you, nor any human bean(head), knows all there is to know about physics. That which you do not know lies within the realm of infinite potentiality, which is where human flight existed in the Bronze Age.

It ain't word salad, my prickly friend. It's simple logic. Elementary.

[BigMike]

Big Mikey:

The conditions that define your grounded physics don't exist everywhere in the universe. Besides, considering that science cannot answer fundamental questions of the universe, and must create fudge factors as big as the moon, such as dark energy, to make the equations work, then we can conclude that neither you, nor any human bean(head), knows all there is to know about physics. That which you do not know lies within the realm of infinite potentiality, which is where human flight existed in the Bronze Age.

It ain't word salad, my prickly friend. It's simple logic.

"Simple Logic"? More Like Convenient Evasion

Walker, your response is as fluffy as your “infinite potentiality” argument. Let’s address your points directly and dismantle the façade of “logic” you’re attempting to wear.

1. "The conditions that define your grounded physics don't exist everywhere in the universe."
Sure, conditions vary. But the laws of physics don’t. Gravity, conservation laws, and fundamental forces operate universally. Just because conditions differ—like temperature or pressure—doesn’t mean the underlying principles are suspended somewhere in the cosmos. This isn’t an escape hatch for your "infinite potentiality" musings; it’s just a misrepresentation of how physics works.

2. "Science cannot answer fundamental questions of the universe."
Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers—it’s a method, not a dogma. But here’s the difference: science asks the questions and works tirelessly to find evidence-based answers. Your “infinite potentiality” does nothing but wave vaguely in the direction of possibility without contributing anything useful. Dark energy, for example, isn’t a "fudge factor"—it’s a placeholder for observed phenomena we’re still investigating. That’s called intellectual honesty, something your argument could use a dose of.

3. "That which you do not know lies within the realm of infinite potentiality."
Translation: “Anything could happen, so my vague philosophy is as valid as your evidence.” No, it’s not. Potentiality without evidence is just speculation. Human flight didn’t spring forth from infinite potentiality in the Bronze Age—it emerged from understanding physics, developing technology, and applying the scientific method. Your argument ignores how we get from “potential” to reality: through evidence-based progress, not wishful thinking.

4. "It ain’t word salad."
Oh, but it is. You’re tossing around concepts like “infinite potentiality” and sprinkling in some snark to make it seem insightful. In reality, it’s empty rhetoric that dodges the hard work of providing evidence or grappling with testable ideas.

If you want to contribute to the conversation, ditch the abstractions and engage with the principles that make things possible—like science and determinism. Otherwise, you’re just waxing poetic while science continues to push the boundaries of what’s real. That’s not logic; it’s intellectual complacency dressed up as profundity.

[Walker]

Mikey, you're not God, therefore you must assert the known laws of physics as you know them, and you cannot assert the laws of physics that you don't know.

Don't you know that physics is simply the best guess with available data, which includes things you've learned.

There's a guess about what happens inside a black hole and it can be explained in the broad abstractions that you favour, however, not all elements of the condition can be known without data, not to mention what must be one hell of an experience.

If you're lucky, maybe I'll contribute to your avocation later ... when you've grown a bit and become worthy, BigMikey.

[BigMike]

Mikey, you're not God, therefore you must assert the known laws of physics as you know them, and you cannot assert the laws of physics that you don't know.

Don't you know that physics is simply the best guess with available data, which includes things you've learned.

There's a guess about what happens inside a black hole and it can be explained in the broad abstractions that you favour, however, not all elements of the condition can be known without data, not to mention what must be one hell of an experience.

If you're lucky, maybe I'll contribute to your avocation later ... when you've grown a bit and become worthy, BigMikey.

Walker, your response is a spectacular mix of condescension and misunderstanding, wrapped in a smug bow. Let's set the record straight.

Physics isn’t “just a guess.” It’s a rigorously tested framework built on empirical data and predictive success. Yes, we acknowledge its limits—that’s the beauty of science. It refines itself as more data becomes available. But this humility isn’t weakness; it’s strength. The fact that we don’t know everything doesn’t invalidate what we do know, and it certainly doesn’t leave the door open for ungrounded abstractions masquerading as insight.

Your invocation of black holes is a perfect example. The unknowns about black holes are actively researched, based on the same laws that make everything from smartphones to spaceflight possible. The “hell of an experience” inside one doesn’t require abandoning determinism or conservation laws—it requires continued exploration. Speculating about the unknowable isn’t profound; it’s just a distraction.

And the claim that I “cannot assert the laws of physics that I don’t know” is a cute rhetorical jab, but it’s meaningless. Physics isn’t about individual belief; it’s about collective, evidence-based understanding. The known laws are demonstrable and work consistently across conditions. If you’re suggesting there are entirely unknown laws that contradict what we know, you’d better provide evidence, not a wink and a smirk.

As for earning your contribution “when I’ve grown a bit,” save the patronizing tone for someone it might impress. If you’ve got something meaningful to add, do it now. Otherwise, this post is just another dodge dressed up as wit.

[BigMike]

Is it just me, or has this forum turned into a breeding ground for pseudo-intellectual nonsense? Every thread seems to devolve into the same pattern: someone brings up science, logic, or evidence, and it’s immediately met with evasions, abstract hand-waving, and smug condescension. It’s like no one here is interested in actual discourse—they just want to hear themselves talk.

We’ve got people dismissing science while literally using devices that science created, all while waxing poetic about ‘infinite potentiality’ and other fluffy terms that mean absolutely nothing. Evidence? Nope. Coherent arguments? Forget it. Just layer upon layer of vague posturing, sprinkled with some condescending emojis for good measure.

This isn’t a discussion—it’s a cacophony of egos trying to outdo each other with the most convoluted way to say nothing. If anyone out there actually wants to engage in meaningful, evidence-based conversation, let me know. Until then, I’m starting to think this forum is just a carnival of nuts masquerading as philosophers.

[Skepdick]

It’s like no one here is interested in actual discourse—they just want to hear themselves talk.

You win the irony olympics.

[FlashDangerpants]

Is it just me, or has this forum turned into a breeding ground for pseudo-intellectual nonsense? Every thread seems to devolve into the same pattern: someone brings up science, logic, or evidence, and it’s immediately met with evasions, abstract hand-waving, and smug condescension. It’s like no one here is interested in actual discourse—they just want to hear themselves talk.

We’ve got people dismissing science while literally using devices that science created, all while waxing poetic about ‘infinite potentiality’ and other fluffy terms that mean absolutely nothing. Evidence? Nope. Coherent arguments? Forget it. Just layer upon layer of vague posturing, sprinkled with some condescending emojis for good measure.

This isn’t a discussion—it’s a cacophony of egos trying to outdo each other with the most convoluted way to say nothing. If anyone out there actually wants to engage in meaningful, evidence-based conversation, let me know. Until then, I’m starting to think this forum is just a carnival of nuts masquerading as philosophers.

All of that counts as self comment, you just haven't got enough education to realise it.

You've been smug and discourteous from the start so you may as well not bother whining about a bit of smugness coming back your way. You clearly know an awful lot less than you think you do, and are absurdly pretentious. Nobody has actually dismissed science so far as I have seen, but you are not a very sophisticated reader, so it might appear to you that they have.

You wax poetic about the 'elegance of science', that doesn't really mean anything. You are not equipped to judge what is or is not a coherent argument. You are not at all special and not particularly talented. Several of the times you have accused somebody of saying nothing, the problem has been you.

This offer excludes Walker obviously, he's a custard-brained dotard. But Skepdick is an idiot with an epic scale personality disorder, and even he has the beating of you here. That's bad, real bad.

[BigMike]

All of that counts as self comment, you just haven't got enough education to realise it.

You've been smug and discourteous from the start so you may as well not bother whining about a bit of smugness coming back your way. You clearly know an awful lot less than you think you do, and are absurdly pretentious. Nobody has actually dismissed science so far as I have seen, but you are not a very sophisticated reader, so it might appear to you that they have.

You wax poetic about the 'elegance of science', that doesn't really mean anything. You are not equipped to judge what is or is not a coherent argument. You are not at all special and not particularly talented. Several of the times you have accused somebody of saying nothing, the problem has been you.

This offer excludes Walker obviously, he's a custard-brained dotard. But Skepdick is an idiot with an epic scale personality disorder, and even he has the beating of you here. That's bad, real bad.

Flash, let’s clarify something fundamental: do you accept that every event, including thoughts, has a physical cause? That’s the cornerstone of any meaningful discussion about science, determinism, and the nature of reality. If you reject this, then say so plainly, so we can stop pretending this is a serious conversation. If you accept it, then it’s time to acknowledge the implications rather than sidestepping into personal jabs and deflections.

Your criticism of my tone is noted, but let’s not forget—smugness is no substitute for substance. So, what’s your answer?