Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[FlashDangerpants]

Before diving into any philosophical discussion with those who ask me questions and expect answers, I must ensure we're operating on the same foundational understanding of reality. I adhere to the scientific principle that everything that happens in the universe is caused by the exchange of conserved physical properties (such as energy, momentum, charge, etc.) through the application of the fundamental forces of nature—whether we currently identify them as four, five, or even six.

That's a statement of axiomatic assumptions. Nobody who is remotely versed in philosphy can take you seriously if you persist in denying this obvious fact.

If you do not agree with this causal framework, I kindly ask you to present evidence refuting it before we proceed further. This is not meant to shut down dialogue but to establish a baseline for meaningful conversation. Without shared assumptions, we're likely to talk past each other, wasting both my time and yours.

You are asking people to prove a negative.

Flash, it’s not axiomatic; it’s hypothetic, based on centuries of empirical observation and scientific theory. The conservation laws—energy, momentum, charge—are not arbitrary assumptions but hypotheses rigorously tested and never falsified in any known context. If they were falsified, physics as we know it would collapse, so the framework is not baseless but empirically grounded.

I didn't say baseless, axioms are seldom that, they are usually so intuitive as to be considered self-evident, so I can't imagine a good reason for you to insert that word into the conversation.

As I have already mentioned, I am not particularly a phil of sci sort of person, but even I can see you lack sophistication in this area. It is now long past time for you to wake up to the idea that other people sometimes know stuff.

Here's a video about this subject matter. Somewhere in the middle he even mentions your precious conservation theories. It's only 5 minutes long, if you don't get it, find a longer video until you do. Leslie Allan - Assumptions Masquerading as Axioms But please don't misrepresent me, I am not relying on any of your axioms being untrue here, I can grant the conservation stuff if need be.

Not only is it easily possible for the axioms of science that you hold dear to be incomplete, but it is to be expected that they are. There is no reason at all not to suspect that among the many things for which you are yet to account can be something that explains choosing engines without recourse to spooky immaterials. It would be pure hubris to accuse me of undoing all of science by noting this when all I am doing is challenging the completeness of your axioms.

I’m not asking anyone to “prove a negative.” If someone rejects the causal framework of conserved physical properties, they’re free to provide evidence or reasoning showing where it fails. That’s the nature of science—it builds hypotheses, tests them, and refines understanding based on new evidence. What I’m doing is holding the discussion to a standard of evidence, not entertaining unsupported contradictions for their own sake. If you can show where conservation laws or causal principles fail, I’m all ears. Otherwise, this is just rhetorical noise. Refusal to comply with my terms will be considered yet another application to be transferred to my ignore list. If you can't engage with the premises I've laid out or provide evidence against them, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

If you put me on your ignore list for this, then you are just weak.

[godelian]

I must ensure we're operating on the same foundational understanding of reality.

Malware and software aren’t "defying predictions"

The following is a video in which two pieces of software actively try to defy each other's predictions:

Almas Missile Outsmarts Merkava Tank’s Protection System!

Seriously, your so-called "foundational understanding of reality" is a complete joke.

[BigMike]

That's a statement of axiomatic assumptions. Nobody who is remotely versed in philosphy can take you seriously if you persist in denying this obvious fact.


You are asking people to prove a negative.

Flash, it’s not axiomatic; it’s hypothetic, based on centuries of empirical observation and scientific theory. The conservation laws—energy, momentum, charge—are not arbitrary assumptions but hypotheses rigorously tested and never falsified in any known context. If they were falsified, physics as we know it would collapse, so the framework is not baseless but empirically grounded.

I didn't say baseless, axioms are seldom that, they are usually so intuitive as to be considered self-evident, so I can't imagine a good reason for you to insert that word into the conversation.

As I have already mentioned, I am not particularly a phil of sci sort of person, but even I can see you lack sophistication in this area. It is now long past time for you to wake up to the idea that other people sometimes know stuff.

Here's a video about this subject matter. Somewhere in the middle he even mentions your precious conservation theories. It's only 5 minutes long, if you don't get it, find a longer video until you do. Leslie Allan - Assumptions Masquerading as Axioms But please don't misrepresent me, I am not relying on any of your axioms being untrue here, I can grant the conservation stuff if need be.

Not only is it easily possible for the axioms of science that you hold dear to be incomplete, but it is to be expected that they are. There is no reason at all not to suspect that among the many things for which you are yet to account can be something that explains choosing engines without recourse to spooky immaterials. It would be pure hubris to accuse me of undoing all of science by noting this when all I am doing is challenging the completeness of your axioms.

I’m not asking anyone to “prove a negative.” If someone rejects the causal framework of conserved physical properties, they’re free to provide evidence or reasoning showing where it fails. That’s the nature of science—it builds hypotheses, tests them, and refines understanding based on new evidence. What I’m doing is holding the discussion to a standard of evidence, not entertaining unsupported contradictions for their own sake. If you can show where conservation laws or causal principles fail, I’m all ears. Otherwise, this is just rhetorical noise. Refusal to comply with my terms will be considered yet another application to be transferred to my ignore list. If you can't engage with the premises I've laid out or provide evidence against them, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

If you put me on your ignore list for this, then you are just weak.

Flash, let’s make this simple: either you accept that I have expressed the current state of the foundation of all empirical science—excluding purely axiomatic deductive disciplines like mathematics and logic—and we can discuss things like free will and other related topics from there. Or we stop here and now, agreeing that we live in fundamentally different realities.

I’m not here to entertain endless philosophical posturing that avoids engaging with the core premises. If you’re unwilling to ground this discussion in the established scientific framework, there’s no point in continuing. Choose wisely.

[Skepdick]

Refusal to comply with my terms will be considered yet another application to be transferred to my ignore list.

So when will you start ignoring yourself?

Since you can't even figure our what your own terms are; let alone comply with them.

[Skepdick]

Flash, let’s make this simple: either you accept that I have expressed the current state of the foundation of all empirical science—excluding purely axiomatic deductive disciplines like mathematics and logic

Translation: You've arbitrarily excluded the formal sciences from the sciences and you can't tell us why.

You've taken the engine out of the car and you are making *WROOOM!* noises.

I’m not here to entertain endless philosophical posturing that avoids engaging with the core premises.

Huh? Didn't you ust exclude purely axiomatic/deductive disciplines ?!? Now you are mad that people are disengaging your axioms/core premises?

That was a rapid U-turn.

Choose wisely.

Ultimatums don't really work when nobody takes you seriously.

[godelian]

Flash, let’s make this simple: either you accept that I have expressed the current state of the foundation of all empirical science—excluding purely axiomatic deductive disciplines like mathematics and logic—and we can discuss things like free will and other related topics from there.

You have never clarified what exactly you were going to test experimentally to support your views on free will. You do not use the scientific method at all, while still claiming that it would be the only way to answer the question. Therefore, what you have expressed, is sheer nonsense.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, it’s not axiomatic; it’s hypothetic, based on centuries of empirical observation and scientific theory. The conservation laws—energy, momentum, charge—are not arbitrary assumptions but hypotheses rigorously tested and never falsified in any known context. If they were falsified, physics as we know it would collapse, so the framework is not baseless but empirically grounded.

I didn't say baseless, axioms are seldom that, they are usually so intuitive as to be considered self-evident, so I can't imagine a good reason for you to insert that word into the conversation.

As I have already mentioned, I am not particularly a phil of sci sort of person, but even I can see you lack sophistication in this area. It is now long past time for you to wake up to the idea that other people sometimes know stuff.

Here's a video about this subject matter. Somewhere in the middle he even mentions your precious conservation theories. It's only 5 minutes long, if you don't get it, find a longer video until you do. Leslie Allan - Assumptions Masquerading as Axioms But please don't misrepresent me, I am not relying on any of your axioms being untrue here, I can grant the conservation stuff if need be.

Not only is it easily possible for the axioms of science that you hold dear to be incomplete, but it is to be expected that they are. There is no reason at all not to suspect that among the many things for which you are yet to account can be something that explains choosing engines without recourse to spooky immaterials. It would be pure hubris to accuse me of undoing all of science by noting this when all I am doing is challenging the completeness of your axioms.

I’m not asking anyone to “prove a negative.” If someone rejects the causal framework of conserved physical properties, they’re free to provide evidence or reasoning showing where it fails. That’s the nature of science—it builds hypotheses, tests them, and refines understanding based on new evidence. What I’m doing is holding the discussion to a standard of evidence, not entertaining unsupported contradictions for their own sake. If you can show where conservation laws or causal principles fail, I’m all ears. Otherwise, this is just rhetorical noise. Refusal to comply with my terms will be considered yet another application to be transferred to my ignore list. If you can't engage with the premises I've laid out or provide evidence against them, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

If you put me on your ignore list for this, then you are just weak.

Flash, let’s make this simple: either you accept that I have expressed the current state of the foundation of all empirical science—excluding purely axiomatic deductive disciplines like mathematics and logic—and we can discuss things like free will and other related topics from there. Or we stop here and now, agreeing that we live in fundamentally different realities.

"purely"?

I am referencing axioms in science in the same terms as Thomas Kuhn among others. It's not my problem if your education is lacking and your hubris is showing.

I’m not here to entertain endless philosophical posturing that avoids engaging with the core premises. If you’re unwilling to ground this discussion in the established scientific framework, there’s no point in continuing.

I am engaging with your core premises. They lack foundation due to assumptions you make for which there is no reason to suppose completeness or sufficiency. In other words, you have a dogma problem.

Choose wisely.

Sorry bud, but it looks like you've decided not to do that.

[FlashDangerpants]

So does that leave him with anybody to talk to at all?

[Atla]

Before diving into any philosophical discussion with those who ask me questions and expect answers, I must ensure we're operating on the same foundational understanding of reality. I adhere to the scientific principle that everything that happens in the universe is caused by the exchange of conserved physical properties (such as energy, momentum, charge, etc.) through the application of the fundamental forces of nature—whether we currently identify them as four, five, or even six.

If you do not agree with this causal framework, I kindly ask you to present evidence refuting it before we proceed further. This is not meant to shut down dialogue but to establish a baseline for meaningful conversation. Without shared assumptions, we're likely to talk past each other, wasting both my time and yours.

Which interpretation of 4D determinism do you subscribe to btw?

1: The Big bang happened so and so, and everything that came after was determined by it, including the choice I just made.
2: I just made this choice, which determines that the Big Bang too must have happened so and so.
3: Both 1 and 2 are valid perspectives on the greater consistent whole.
4: Other

[Skepdick]

So does that leave him with anybody to talk to at all?

You got the feeling he wants to talk to anyone? He seems like the talking-at (form a soapbox) type.

Every dictator believes in (the installation of) determinism...

[Atla]

Refusal to comply with my terms will be considered yet another application to be transferred to my ignore list. If you can't engage with the premises I've laid out or provide evidence against them, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

I hereby offer BigMike $8,000 for EACH MEMBER he liberates from the Prison of Ignore!

Can anyone put you on ignore and then remove your from ignore, and collect the money? Or just BigMike?

[BigMike]

I didn't say baseless, axioms are seldom that, they are usually so intuitive as to be considered self-evident, so I can't imagine a good reason for you to insert that word into the conversation.

As I have already mentioned, I am not particularly a phil of sci sort of person, but even I can see you lack sophistication in this area. It is now long past time for you to wake up to the idea that other people sometimes know stuff.

Here's a video about this subject matter. Somewhere in the middle he even mentions your precious conservation theories. It's only 5 minutes long, if you don't get it, find a longer video until you do. Leslie Allan - Assumptions Masquerading as Axioms But please don't misrepresent me, I am not relying on any of your axioms being untrue here, I can grant the conservation stuff if need be.

Not only is it easily possible for the axioms of science that you hold dear to be incomplete, but it is to be expected that they are. There is no reason at all not to suspect that among the many things for which you are yet to account can be something that explains choosing engines without recourse to spooky immaterials. It would be pure hubris to accuse me of undoing all of science by noting this when all I am doing is challenging the completeness of your axioms.


If you put me on your ignore list for this, then you are just weak.

Flash, let’s make this simple: either you accept that I have expressed the current state of the foundation of all empirical science—excluding purely axiomatic deductive disciplines like mathematics and logic—and we can discuss things like free will and other related topics from there. Or we stop here and now, agreeing that we live in fundamentally different realities.

"purely"?

I am referencing axioms in science in the same terms as Thomas Kuhn among others. It's not my problem if your education is lacking and your hubris is showing.

I’m not here to entertain endless philosophical posturing that avoids engaging with the core premises. If you’re unwilling to ground this discussion in the established scientific framework, there’s no point in continuing.

I am engaging with your core premises. They lack foundation due to assumptions you make for which there is no reason to suppose completeness or sufficiency. In other words, you have a dogma problem.

Choose wisely.

Sorry bud, but it looks like you've decided not to do that.

Flash, let me spell this out for you: an axiom is a self-evident truth or a starting point in a logical or mathematical system, something assumed without needing empirical evidence. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is a proposed explanation grounded in observation and experimentation, subject to testing and falsification. Conservation laws, which I’ve referenced, are not axioms—they are empirically derived and have stood up to rigorous testing in every scientific discipline.

Your attempts to conflate the two are either disingenuous or reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction. Science isn’t dogma—it’s a framework built on hypotheses validated through evidence. If you want to challenge the validity or completeness of conservation laws, present data or reasoning, not this empty hand-waving about "dogma."

Cut the BS, engage substantively, or we stop here. If you’re not willing to move past philosophical mudslinging, I’m not interested in entertaining your contrarian posturing. Final warning.

[BigMike]

Before diving into any philosophical discussion with those who ask me questions and expect answers, I must ensure we're operating on the same foundational understanding of reality. I adhere to the scientific principle that everything that happens in the universe is caused by the exchange of conserved physical properties (such as energy, momentum, charge, etc.) through the application of the fundamental forces of nature—whether we currently identify them as four, five, or even six.

If you do not agree with this causal framework, I kindly ask you to present evidence refuting it before we proceed further. This is not meant to shut down dialogue but to establish a baseline for meaningful conversation. Without shared assumptions, we're likely to talk past each other, wasting both my time and yours.

Which interpretation of 4D determinism do you subscribe to btw?

1: The Big bang happened so and so, and everything that came after was determined by it, including the choice I just made.
2: I just made this choice, which determines that the Big Bang too must have happened so and so.
3: Both 1 and 2 are valid perspectives on the greater consistent whole.
4: Other

Atla, none of these interpretations make sense in the context of determinism as grounded in science. Determinism isn’t about retrocausality or choices determining past events—it’s about causality flowing forward through time, consistent with conservation laws and the fundamental forces of nature.

The valid interpretation is this: The Big Bang established the initial conditions of the universe, and everything that has happened since—including your so-called "choice"—is a causally determined outcome of those conditions. There’s no "perspective" that allows for backward causation (#2) or dual perspectives (#3). These ideas aren’t interpretations of determinism; they’re philosophical noise that misrepresents its principles.

If you’re asking which framework to discuss, stick to the one that aligns with established physics: forward causality governed by determinism. If you want to entertain speculative interpretations like #2 or #3, we’re operating in fantasy, not science. Let’s not waste time on irrelevant detours.

[Skepdick]

Conservation laws, which I’ve referenced, are not axioms—they are empirically derived

No, they aren't. You can't define any conservation "law" without equational reasoning; and you can't derrive any equations empirically. Noether's theorem is NOT empirical.

I'd explain the difference between symemtric and asymmetric reasoning to you; but you seem to have zero desire to comprehend what information is.

Symmetric reasoning alone (like the equations used in physics) cannot generate new information - It can only rearrange or restate what was already implicit in the premises - it's tautological at best.

[Atla]

Before diving into any philosophical discussion with those who ask me questions and expect answers, I must ensure we're operating on the same foundational understanding of reality. I adhere to the scientific principle that everything that happens in the universe is caused by the exchange of conserved physical properties (such as energy, momentum, charge, etc.) through the application of the fundamental forces of nature—whether we currently identify them as four, five, or even six.

If you do not agree with this causal framework, I kindly ask you to present evidence refuting it before we proceed further. This is not meant to shut down dialogue but to establish a baseline for meaningful conversation. Without shared assumptions, we're likely to talk past each other, wasting both my time and yours.

Which interpretation of 4D determinism do you subscribe to btw?

1: The Big bang happened so and so, and everything that came after was determined by it, including the choice I just made.
2: I just made this choice, which determines that the Big Bang too must have happened so and so.
3: Both 1 and 2 are valid perspectives on the greater consistent whole.
4: Other

Atla, none of these interpretations make sense in the context of determinism as grounded in science. Determinism isn’t about retrocausality or choices determining past events—it’s about causality flowing forward through time, consistent with conservation laws and the fundamental forces of nature.

The valid interpretation is this: The Big Bang established the initial conditions of the universe, and everything that has happened since—including your so-called "choice"—is a causally determined outcome of those conditions. There’s no "perspective" that allows for backward causation (#2) or dual perspectives (#3). These ideas aren’t interpretations of determinism; they’re philosophical noise that misrepresents its principles.

If you’re asking which framework to discuss, stick to the one that aligns with established physics: forward causality governed by determinism. If you want to entertain speculative interpretations like #2 or #3, we’re operating in fantasy, not science. Let’s not waste time on irrelevant detours.

Are you saying that conservation laws aren't time-symmetric?