Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Gary Childress]

You, Gary, have absolutely no access either to “objectivity” and certainly to no “truth”.

You pronounce this, not me.

[Middle English pronouncen, from Old French prononcier, from Latin prōnūntiāre : prō-, forth; see pro-1 + nūntiāre, to announce (from nūntius, messenger; see neu- in Indo-European roots).]

Jerk.

It was not said in that spirit, FYI. My general theory is that •people• have substantially lost any sense of ground. Philosophy does not help them much. In fact it de-grounds them even more.

Well, maybe you're right. I've been sitting here wondering this evening if this is all there is to life, boredom and depression. Are there no worthwhile goals to pursue, no adventures to be had? Instead of going out and doing things, I feel like I should stay home and not waste fossil fuel. The highest I can think of aspiring to is reducing my carbon footprint. I can't begin to imagine what it must be like on younger generations to feel like the world they were born into is quickly approaching its end. I could say I feel a bit like Nietzsche, the hermit of Sils Maria seeking the antidote to nihilism, except I can't even find adventure in philosophy, science or religion anymore. Part of that is doubtless my medication keeping me subdued in a mental fog. This is just not the way to live life. There's something wrong with me and there's something wrong with the world.

If there is a God in this universe, all I ask for is a reason to want to wake up in the morning.

[Age]

Jerk.

It was not said in that spirit, FYI. My general theory is that •people• have substantially lost any sense of ground. Philosophy does not help them much. In fact it de-grounds them even more.

Well, maybe you're right. I've been sitting here wondering this evening if this is all there is to life, boredom and depression.

Did you come up with 'an answer'?

if yes, then what was 'it', exactly?

But, if no, then what are you waiting for, exactly?

Also, if you, still, do not yet KNOW what 'the answer' is to the question, 'Is boredom and depression ALL there is to life?' then 'the answer' is 'No', because there is, obviously, 'slowness', as well.

Are there no worthwhile goals to pursue, no adventures to be had?

Are 'you' asking, or wondering, 'these questions' in relation to "gary childress", only , to 'some', or to 'every one'?

Instead of going out and doing things, I feel like I should stay home and not waste fossil fuel.

Were you NOT YET AWARE that 'you' can actually go out and do things without using 'fossil fuel'?

The highest I can think of aspiring to is reducing my carbon footprint.

Okay. But some might suggest or say that you are NOT 'thinking' very highly, at all.

I can't begin to imagine what it must be like on younger generations to feel like the world they were born into is quickly approaching its end.

The Truly younger ones would NEVER EVER think, wonder, NOR feel 'this'.

Only some of you older ones do.

I could say I feel a bit like Nietzsche, the hermit of Sils Maria seeking the antidote to nihilism, except I can't even find adventure in philosophy, science or religion anymore.

Have you considered NOT thinking and NOT feeling like 'the world' is so-called 'quickly approaching its end'.

Oh, and by the way, the quicker 'this world' ENDS, then 'the better' this IS and WILL BE for EVERY one. But, then again and obviously, 'you' may well have a completely different 'view' and 'outlook', than 'I' do, on what 'the world' ACTUALLY IS, exactly.

Part of that is doubtless my medication keeping me subdued in a mental fog. This is just not the way to live life.

That medication that you are taking is, and can, only 'suppress' 'feelings/emotions' ONLY. The, literal, reason you WHY you are 'feeling' 'down' is BECAUSE 'that medication/s' is KEEPING 'you' 'feeling down'. But, those medications are ONLY 'keeping' your internal feelings/emotions 'down'. Which are then being ALLOWED to effect 'the thinking and thoughts', within. However, and 'see', those medications can NOT, themselves, CHANGE the thoughts and thinking, within. And, like the 'good quotes' go, 'Do you LET, nor ALLOW, 'your emotions' to CONTROL your ACTIONS, or BEHAVIORS.

Also, just REMEMBER to NOT ALLOW 'emotions' to CONTROL the thoughts and thinking, within 'that head'. Once 'the thoughts' are being CONTROLLED by the 'I', within body, then 'those thoughts' WILL have CONTROL OVER 'the emotions', and once 'the emotions' are NOT 'down', and are 'HIGH', as some might say, then 'life', and living, BE-COMES MUCH MORE FULL-FILLING.

But, do NOT 'take this', FROM 'me'. Try it "yourself", and just SEE 'what happens'.

There's something wrong with me and there's something wrong with the world.

If you say and BELIEVE so. But, what is, supposedly and allegedly, 'wrong' with 'you', and 'wrong' with 'the world', to you, exactly?

If there is a God in this universe, all I ask for is a reason to want to wake up in the morning.

So as to BEAR WITNESS to the BEAUTY that IS being Created.

However, if you are only going to 'wake up' and SEE 'the Destruction', ONLY, then you WILL MISS the BEAUTY, AS WELL.

Oh, and by the way, 'i' FORGET if 'i' am on 'your' IGNORE LIST. So, if 'i' am, then 'you' will NOT SEE 'this', ALSO.

[Dubious]

As resolved within the deterministic, the choices available are restricted to the mental spectrum of the thinking machine in question, be it a dog, cat or human, etc. It's only humans who think that such elections amount to an exercise of free will. It's the "conditional" at any moment in time, which restricts the options available, inculcating the feeling that it's US who decided.

In that respect, free will, as usually denoted, relates to nothing more than a function of metaphysics.

Dubious, congratulations—you've successfully condensed determinism into the most digestible "user manual for life."

Thanks! I may have lost everyone with the dog and cat inclusion as participants within the spectrum of free will, which most think is an endowment belonging only to humans. The way we encounter free will comes across as more of a directive or command to an animal.

I think of it, based solely on its functionality as WE experience it, as the little which remains, the choices already predetermined without our being conscious of it. Analogically, it's like the tip of the proverbial iceberg which we see without being aware of the upholding indispensable foundation which anchors it. It's the kind of filtering through to awareness those Notes from the underground which, at root, are all based on the fixed protocols of physics...as you've endlessly tried to explain but, as you have surely noticed, most have predetermined that the science is wrong to keep the false simulacrum of free will from disappearing.

[Immanuel Can]

...there are "genuine choices" in a deterministic universe.

Go back and read the definitions.

[Immanuel Can]

If you don't understand the relevance, I'll be happy to show it's not only relevant but conclusive.

Try to create an actual infinite regress on paper. Count backwards from 0...-1...-2...but don't write any number until the earlier number has already been written. And email me again when you finally get to write your first number.

QED.

One white swan does not demonstrate that all swans are white,

If you think that was the argument, then you didn't understand even the first thing about it. But I think I've made it as straightforward as I can, and so you'll have to do without understanding, I guess.

I am saying that the basis contributes to the choice made.

I don't know why you're bothering to say it, because I don't know a person on earth who denies that. "Contributes to," yes; "determines," no.

Staring at the $5, your wife has a choice. One thing should could "base" it on is her desire for coffee. Another is her desire for parking. Another is her desire for you to retain your $5. All of those choices are "based on" things: but which one, which "basis" will she choose to respond to? You don't know.

Fine. Agree with all that.

Alright.

If Determinism were true, there would be no such thing as any genuine choice, ever.

'Genuine choice' has not been defined.

Then let's do that: a "genuine choice" is a choice that actually alters the possible outcome of an incident. Determinism insists there is only ever one possible outcome to everything, and since "choice" requires a minimum of two possibilities, no genuine choice ever exists under Determinism.

There we go.

...even under deterministic physics (as much as in random physics), the choice happens under volition, human or otherwise.

Actually, no. Causal Determinism has to insist that volition is not a factor, but rather just a meaningless label slapped on predetermined events.

Will is what you want to do. Of course you have that. It's totally evident. Even a frog has it.

The Determinist is going to say, "Prove that." And you won't be able to, because for every evidence you try to give, he'll simply say, "That was predetermined."

I've never seen somebody make anything but one choice.

But what you can neither prove not prove wrong is whether it could have been a different choice. The Determinist is going to say, "There never was a possibility of anything but exactly what happened being chosen." For the Determinist, there is no "could have been," no "other possibility," and hence, no choice at all was made: not "one choice," as you say, but no choices at all.

You talk about determinists being self-deceived, but that's only if they're wrong,...

And they are. Because even a Determinist argues for his own view. Which means that he supposes your volition can be changed, and that his words can do it. But if he were consistent, he would have to say, "It was always fated that my listeners would only ever believe what they were predestined to believe; so there's no point in trying to change that, because I cannot." But they never say that.

if all things are predetermined

How is 'predetermined' distinct from 'determined'?

All the "pre-" is, is a prefix that emphasizes the "beforeness." Effectively, they are synonyms, with only a minor emphasis difference. "Determinism" may include the whole spectrum of time (past, present and future), but "predetermined" focuses on the before, the past period of the spectrum.

[Skepdick]

No, it means there ISN'T one

Precisely. There ISN'T a "first" cause. Because that's how infinite regress works.

...that there is ALWAYS the requirement of a preexisting cause.

Precisely. I am so glad we could both agree that you are wrong.

I guess you are slowly coming to grips with how eternity works.

Or dead simply: a chain of events that, for each step, always requires a 'predecessor' for every event never starts.

Precisely. An infinite causal chain doesn't require a "start".

That's the part of "there's NO element without a predecessor".

Now, that's so obvious, if you can't get it...well, you have to get it, and be trolling.

It's so obvious you seem to understand precisely how it works.

What I don't understand why you then proceed to make an argument from personal incredulity... If you can conceive of infinite regress how then are you arriving at the conclusion that it's "impossible"? Is that only because if it were possible, then God (as First Cause) becomes "impossible" (to you)?
Is all you are doing here defending your defunct teleological position?

Is this infinite regrress a problem for your God? Shame. Get a greater God.

[BigMike]

Jerk.

It was not said in that spirit, FYI. My general theory is that •people• have substantially lost any sense of ground. Philosophy does not help them much. In fact it de-grounds them even more.

Well, maybe you're right. I've been sitting here wondering this evening if this is all there is to life, boredom and depression. Are there no worthwhile goals to pursue, no adventures to be had? Instead of going out and doing things, I feel like I should stay home and not waste fossil fuel. The highest I can think of aspiring to is reducing my carbon footprint. I can't begin to imagine what it must be like on younger generations to feel like the world they were born into is quickly approaching its end. I could say I feel a bit like Nietzsche, the hermit of Sils Maria seeking the antidote to nihilism, except I can't even find adventure in philosophy, science or religion anymore. Part of that is doubtless my medication keeping me subdued in a mental fog. This is just not the way to live life. There's something wrong with me and there's something wrong with the world.

If there is a God in this universe, all I ask for is a reason to want to wake up in the morning.

Gary, your honesty here is raw and deeply human, and I appreciate your openness. It’s hard when the weight of existential questions feels heavier than the promise of answers or meaning. You’re right—there’s something wrong with the world, and sometimes it feels like there’s something wrong within us, too.

But maybe the "something wrong" is also a starting point. When you strip everything down to that kind of honesty, there’s space to rebuild—small goals, simple joys, or even just a little curiosity to push through the fog. Life doesn’t have to be about monumental adventures or grand truths. Sometimes it’s about finding one small thing today that makes tomorrow worth waking up for—a connection, a kind word, or even just the beauty in something as simple as sunlight on a leaf.

If the world seems too broken, maybe the adventure is in rebuilding it, even in small ways. And if God is listening, I hope you find the reason you’re asking for—or better yet, create it. You’ve got more power in you than you might realize, Gary.

[Walker]

But maybe the "something wrong" is also a starting point. When you strip everything down to that kind of honesty, there’s space to rebuild—small goals, simple joys, or even just a little curiosity to push through the fog.

Why do scientists reject science in favour of a political narrative?

Two reasons:
- To go along to get along.
- Moolah.

[Age]

It was not said in that spirit, FYI. My general theory is that •people• have substantially lost any sense of ground. Philosophy does not help them much. In fact it de-grounds them even more.

Well, maybe you're right. I've been sitting here wondering this evening if this is all there is to life, boredom and depression. Are there no worthwhile goals to pursue, no adventures to be had? Instead of going out and doing things, I feel like I should stay home and not waste fossil fuel. The highest I can think of aspiring to is reducing my carbon footprint. I can't begin to imagine what it must be like on younger generations to feel like the world they were born into is quickly approaching its end. I could say I feel a bit like Nietzsche, the hermit of Sils Maria seeking the antidote to nihilism, except I can't even find adventure in philosophy, science or religion anymore. Part of that is doubtless my medication keeping me subdued in a mental fog. This is just not the way to live life. There's something wrong with me and there's something wrong with the world.

If there is a God in this universe, all I ask for is a reason to want to wake up in the morning.

Gary, your honesty here is raw and deeply human, and I appreciate your openness. It’s hard when the weight of existential questions feels heavier than the promise of answers or meaning. You’re right—there’s something wrong with the world, and sometimes it feels like there’s something wrong within us, too.

The REASON WHY there is something Wrong with 'the world' IS BECAUSE you adult human beings have CREATED 'this world'.

And, there IS something Wrong within you adult human beings, too. And, that is; the False, Wrong, Inaccurate, Incorrect, or JUST DISTORTED 'thoughts' and 'thinking'. Which, by the way, IS the SOLE CAUSE of 'this world', which IS OBVIOUSLY VERY, VERY Wrong, and ILL, SICK, and UNHEALTHY.

Once you adult human beings BEGIN TO CHANGE, FOR THE BETTER, then SO TOO WILL 'the world' ALSO START TO CHANGE, FOR THE BETTER, AS WELL.

But maybe the "something wrong" is also a starting point.

NOT 'maybe', but DEFINITELY 'IS".

When you strip everything down to that kind of honesty, there’s space to rebuild—small goals, simple joys, or even just a little curiosity to push through the fog. Life doesn’t have to be about monumental adventures or grand truths. Sometimes it’s about finding one small thing today that makes tomorrow worth waking up for—a connection, a kind word, or even just the beauty in something as simple as sunlight on a leaf.

If the world seems too broken, maybe the adventure is in rebuilding it, even in small ways. And if God is listening, I hope you find the reason you’re asking for—or better yet, create it. You’ve got more power in you than you might realize, Gary.

[Age]

No, it means there ISN'T one

Precisely. There ISN'T a "first" cause. Because that's how infinite regress works.

BUT, there IS A 'first cause', you human beings here, however, are just NOT YET READY TO HEAR, and SEE, what the 'first cause' REALLY IS, EXACTLY.

By the way, the 'first cause' is NOTHING LIKE what you ALL, here, have been PREVIOUSLY IMAGINING that 'it' COULD BE.

...that there is ALWAYS the requirement of a preexisting cause.

Precisely. I am so glad we could both agree that you are wrong.

I guess you are slowly coming to grips with how eternity works.

Or dead simply: a chain of events that, for each step, always requires a 'predecessor' for every event never starts.

Precisely. An infinite causal chain doesn't require a "start".

So, VERY, VERY True.

But, UNFORTUNATELY "Immanuel can" WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FATHOM, SEE, COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND this IRREFUTABLE Fact while it KEEPS BELIEVING that A 'male-gendered being or person' IS the so-called 'first cause'.

That's the part of "there's NO element without a predecessor".

Now, that's so obvious, if you can't get it...well, you have to get it, and be trolling.

It's so obvious you seem to understand precisely how it works.

What I don't understand why you then proceed to make an argument from personal incredulity... If you can conceive of infinite regress how then are you arriving at the conclusion that it's "impossible"? Is that only because if it were possible, then God (as First Cause) becomes "impossible" (to you)?

That is A RESOUNDING YES.

Is all you are doing here defending your defunct teleological position?

Is this infinite regrress a problem for your God? Shame. Get a greater God.

What is MORE THE SHAME IS that IF "immanuel can" just BECAME MORE OPEN, then it WOULD SEE, and LEARN, that the, IRREFUTABLE, 'infinite Universe' PROVES God, Itself. But, OBVIOUSLY, NOT SOME IMAGINED and BELIEVED MADE UP 'male' version.

[Alexiev]

...there are "genuine choices" in a deterministic universe.

Go back and read the definitions.

"Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition."
Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility

[Immanuel Can]

No, it means there ISN'T one

Precisely. There ISN'T a "first" cause. Because that's how infinite regress works.

No, and you're trolling now. What is means is that there isn't an infinite regress of causes that accounts for the universe.

And if you do basic logic, you can see it now...in a sound syllogism, as given earlier. And since both of the premises are undeniably true (to a person who can do simple maths or has any belief in empirical observation), the conclusion becomes inescapable as well.

[Skepdick]

No, and you're trolling now. What is means is that there isn't an infinite regress of causes that accounts for the universe.

It's exactly what it means. An infinite chain of causes amounts to an eternal explanation.

You know... like an eternal God.

And if you do basic logic, you can see it now...in a sound syllogism, as given earlier. And since both of the premises are undeniably true (to a person who can do simple maths or has any belief in empirical observation), the conclusion becomes inescapable as well.

I am using basic logic. Too bad it's a logic you don't understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitary_logic

[Immanuel Can]

No, and you're trolling now. What is means is that there isn't an infinite regress of causes that accounts for the universe.

It's exactly what it means. An infinite chain of causes amounts to an eternal explanation.

It amounts to a mathematically impossible "explanation," so no possible explanation at all.

But at this point, if you "can't" see that, it can be only because of one of two reasons. Pick the one it is:

1. You're trolling.

2. You don't understand basic mathematics.

[Skepdick]

It amounts to a mathematically impossible "explanation," so no possible explanation at all.

I eagerly await your Mathematical proof of impossibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

But at this point, if you "can't" see that, it can be only because of one of two reasons. Pick the one it is:
1. You're trolling.

2. You don't understand basic mathematics.

I choose option 3.

1 and 2 above. Applied to you.