Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[godelian]

Poor man's AI sez...

DuckAssist BETA
Determinism is primarily a philosophical concept that suggests all events, including human actions, are causally inevitable based on prior events and natural laws. However, it also intersects with scientific discussions, particularly in physics, where it relates to theories about the predictability of events in the universe.

These discussions about idealized theories are almost always philosophy and not science.

A metatheory about idealized object theories cannot be tested physically because idealized object theories are abstractions that cannot be observed physically.

Mathematics, however, can still say meaningful things about idealized untestable theories while science cannot.

Hence, a metatheory about object theories is itself not science, unless it conducts experimentally tests within every testable object theory.

This means that the object theories cannot be idealized objects over which the metatheory can enumerate. If it does, it is not science. Metascience is almost never science.

[Immanuel Can]

Humans are definitely accountable which determinism, if understood correctly, does not prevent them in any way from being. But the quandary here is evident in the fact that it's not merely used as a way to make humans responsible for sinning in its usual secular manner but to image Christ as a redeemer of our sins which is pretty much the central core of Christianity.

Free will thereby becomes fundamental to Christianity which cannot justify itself without that upholding concept.

Aside from that, seriously! What idiot, god or man, would sacrifice themselves for the sins of man who long sinned before the sacrifice and continued to sin even more afterwards when Christians became the main proponents who made sure to flagellate themselves in retribution for their scurrilous free will episodes?

Though often conflated, discussing free will on a philosophic basis is much different than centralizing it as a religious mandate.

Have you never heard of John Calvin? He (and his followers) would dispute your notion that free will is fundamental to Christianity. I'm no theologian, and can't explain the Calvinist view of predestination expertly, but it seems naive to assert Christian universals that are clearly not universal. I'll grant that many Christians (like IC) despise heretics more than non-believers, and think of Calvinists as heretics. But perhaps Big Mike would welcome Calvinists to this discussion, although I doubt he numbers himself among the elect.

It's quite absurd to single out the ONE exception. There is a saying: The exception proves the rule.

Except that Alexiev is right about the Calvinists, and they're not "one" exception. They're many. No, I don't regard them as heretics, though I don't agree with them, and I certainly don't despise them...in fact, I count some among my close friends, but we have to agree to disagree about that issue.

Still Determinism has both Materialist-Physicalist-Naturalist versions and theological versions. And many other religions have a conception of irresistible fate. So Determinism's far from necessarily a secular view.

[Immanuel Can]

Big Mike is a big bust

Yes, he is. But he's fun to tussle with, so that's sumthin'.

Hey, don't let me get in the way of fun.

[Age]

ONCE MORE,

EVERY one HAS 'THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE', which is what the two words 'free will' can be ASSIGNED TO.

However,

EVERY one CAN ONLY 'CHOOSE' from a LIMITED SET of 'thoughts', which ALL OF have come from what an individual human body has 'previously experienced'.

Therefore, BECAUSE OF 'pre-determining factors' A species HAS evolved, into creation, WITH the 'ABILITY TO CHOOSE' to DO whatever it SO WISHES, and DESIRES.

However, until THAT species can create, and cause, the 'ACTUAL world', which they ALL DESIRE. and WANT to live WITH, and IN, they first HAVE TO WAIT for 'deterministic factors' to come about BEFOREHAND.
We

(What those 'factors' are, EXACTLY, by the way, are ALREADY KNOWN, well by some of 'us' anyway.)

But we can take a "leap of faith" that we have free will and this enables us to be agents of change.

Why did you use the 'But' word, here?

Why take a 'leap of faith' when I just EXPLAINED how you human beings DO HAVE 'free will'?

Also, it is the DECISION, taken freely, to CHANGE, for the better, HOW 'the world' DOES, and DID, BEGINS to become a Truly peaceful and loving place to live with-in.

It's unnecessary to have a philosophical argument with oneself before one gets out of bed in the morning.

Just so you become AWARE, to me, you human beings HAVE the ABILITY TO CHOOSE, so I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to what you ASSUMED I was meaning in what I said above, here.

[Age]

Humans are definitely accountable which determinism, if understood correctly, does not prevent them in any way from being.

Then you and Mike disagree. He sez...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...and there ain't no way a man can be accountable in that scheme.

But the quandary here is evident in the fact that it's not merely used as a way to make humans responsible for sinning in its usual secular manner but to image Christ as a redeemer of our sins which is pretty much the central core of Christianity.

I don't see the quandary. God created man, man chose sumthin' other than God, God let man suffer the consequence of his bad choice and then offered man redemption.

Free will thereby becomes fundamental to Christianity which cannot justify itself without that upholding concept.

Like I said: If man had no true choice, if his thoughts and actions were causally inevitable, then he could bear no responsibility, never be accountable, and couldn't be redeemed. And he wouldn't need to be. If man is not a free will then he is as Mike describes him. And, as I say, there ain't no way a man can be accountable in that scheme.

What idiot, god or man, would sacrifice themselves for the sins of man who long sinned before the sacrifice and continued to sin even more afterward

A loving one. A hopeful one. One who has faith in us even when we have no faith in Him.

when Christians became the main proponents who made sure to flagellate themselves in retribution for their scurrilous free will episodes?

You know folks who do that, especially in God's name, have lost the narrative, right? They aren't the baseline, nor should they be.

What happened to being a pantheist? You get more and more 'god-bothering' by the day. It doesn't suit you.

And the funniest thing here is "henry quirk" actually BELIEVES, absolutely, that God is a 'person', of ALL things.

[Age]

Ah, right. Yes, determinism is a science concept.

We're told that, yes.

-----

I stand corrected (a rare thing)...

DuckAssist BETA
Determinism is primarily a philosophical concept that suggests all events, including human actions, are causally inevitable based on prior events and natural laws. However, it also intersects with scientific discussions, particularly in physics, where it relates to theories about the predictability of events in the universe.

Why not present an argument against determinism itself, instead of focusing on his 'better world' personal opinion? Determinism is physics. Even if he's wrong about 'a better world' it doesn't alter the science.

NO one can present a sound and valid argument against eternal causality/cause and effect BECAUSE there is NONE.

The Universe/all-there-is is in an eternal constant state of continual change, HERE-NOW.

And, another word for the 'Universe' is God, with God, in the visible sense, is just 'matter', itself, while God, in the invisible sense, or Spirit, is Mind, Itself.

'Determinism' just being what IS pre-destined to happen, AND, what WAS pre-determined to occur. So, God, which is WITH-IN ALL, is just ALWAYS Creating, with matter AND Mind, what is HAPPENING, and OCCURRING, HERE-NOW, through evolution, and CHANGE.

[Age]

Poor man's AI sez...

DuckAssist BETA
Determinism is primarily a philosophical concept that suggests all events, including human actions, are causally inevitable based on prior events and natural laws. However, it also intersects with scientific discussions, particularly in physics, where it relates to theories about the predictability of events in the universe.

These discussions about idealized theories are almost always philosophy and not science.

A metatheory about idealized object theories cannot be tested physically because idealized object theories are abstractions that cannot be observed physically.

Mathematics, however, can still say meaningful things about idealized untestable theories while science cannot.

If you do not provide examples, then WHY NOT?

Hence, a metatheory about object theories is itself not science, unless it conducts experimentally tests within every testable object theory.

This means that the object theories cannot be idealized objects over which the metatheory can enumerate. If it does, it is not science. Metascience is almost never science.

This is your CLAIM and your THEORY, right?

[Age]

Have you never heard of John Calvin? He (and his followers) would dispute your notion that free will is fundamental to Christianity. I'm no theologian, and can't explain the Calvinist view of predestination expertly, but it seems naive to assert Christian universals that are clearly not universal. I'll grant that many Christians (like IC) despise heretics more than non-believers, and think of Calvinists as heretics. But perhaps Big Mike would welcome Calvinists to this discussion, although I doubt he numbers himself among the elect.

It's quite absurd to single out the ONE exception. There is a saying: The exception proves the rule.

Except that Alexiev is right about the Calvinists, and they're not "one" exception. They're many. No, I don't regard them as heretics, though I don't agree with them, and I certainly don't despise them...in fact, I count some among my close friends, but we have to agree to disagree about that issue.

LOL ANOTHER one who BELIEVES that it comes down to 'agreeing to disagree'.

LOL This REALLY was how CLOSED and STUPID they REALLY were, back in those 'olden days' when this was being written.

Still Determinism has both Materialist-Physicalist-Naturalist versions and theological versions. And many other religions have a conception of irresistible fate. So Determinism's far from necessarily a secular view.

YET, and LOL this one BELIEVES, absolutely, that there are NO 'determining factors', in Life. And, that there is ONLY 'free will', here.

AGAIN, this REALLY was how BLIND and STUPID adult human beings had become, back when this was being written. They, literally, would pick "a side" and FIGHT 'each other' OVER "which side" was right and correct. They were TO BLIND and TO STUPID to REALIZE that their INDOCTRINATED 'teachings' in their younger years had TAUGHT them to continually FIGHT AGAINST 'the other', and that his was HOW the 'devil' was keeping CONTROL OVER 'the world'. AGAIN, back in those very 'olden days', when this was being written.

[Age]

Big Mike is a big bust

Yes, he is. But he's fun to tussle with, so that's sumthin'.

Hey, don't let me get in the way of fun.

See HOW these ones do NOT want to 'look for' AND 'find' HOW they could CHANGE, for the better, in order to make 'the world' a MUCH BETTER place, for their children, and thus ULTIMATELY for 'them' and EVERY one else as well?

Instead they much preferred to FIGHT AGAINST one another, in the HOPE of 'winning' some thing.

The adult human being WAS TOTALLY BLOCKED or BACKWARDS in LOOKING, SEEING, and in LISTENING, and HEARING, when this was being written. Just about EVERY thing they did was for money, SELFISHNESS, and/or GREED. AND, they just could NOT RECOGNIZE, and SEE, this.

[accelafine]

Have you never heard of John Calvin? He (and his followers) would dispute your notion that free will is fundamental to Christianity. I'm no theologian, and can't explain the Calvinist view of predestination expertly, but it seems naive to assert Christian universals that are clearly not universal. I'll grant that many Christians (like IC) despise heretics more than non-believers, and think of Calvinists as heretics. But perhaps Big Mike would welcome Calvinists to this discussion, although I doubt he numbers himself among the elect.

It's quite absurd to single out the ONE exception. There is a saying: The exception proves the rule.

Except that Alexiev is right about the Calvinists, and they're not "one" exception. They're many. No, I don't regard them as heretics, though I don't agree with them, and I certainly don't despise them...in fact, I count some among my close friends, but we have to agree to disagree about that issue.

Still Determinism has both Materialist-Physicalist-Naturalist versions and theological versions. And many other religions have a conception of irresistible fate. So Determinism's far from necessarily a secular view.

What are the 'many other' exceptions? Who cares anyway? It makes no difference to the scientific reality.

[accelafine]

.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah, right. Yes, determinism is a science concept.

No, it is not scientific concept but a mathematical one.

It requires an idealized computational environment. It also requires an idealized axiomatic theory of everything (ToE).

Science does not deal with any of that. Determinism does not have anything to do with experimental testing. Furthermore, science is never axiomatic, which is a firm requirement in dealing with the issue.

Perhaps you can better explain. Am I to understand that some physicists, or possibly most (?), who are obviously involved both with mathematics and science models, do not subscribe to the determinism theory or model?

If the determinism model is (merely) mathematical, but not necessarily one of physics, what would “true” physicists say about this on-going conversation?

Why then is determinism, as a general model, accepted?

[Alexis Jacobi]

George C Scott explains Calvinism to a hooker.

TULIP

[Dubious]

But the quandary here is evident in the fact that it's not merely used as a way to make humans responsible for sinning in its usual secular manner but to image Christ as a redeemer of our sins which is pretty much the central core of Christianity.

I don't see the quandary. God created man, man chose sumthin' other than God, God let man suffer the consequence of his bad choice and then offered man redemption.

Absolutely! It's the kind of outline which has served Hollywood movies amazingly well! I always feel purified after watching one of those!

What idiot, god or man, would sacrifice themselves for the sins of man who long sinned before the sacrifice and continued to sin even more afterward.

A loving one. A hopeful one. One who has faith in us even when we have no faith in Him.

Lovely! Poor little Jesus! I hope he feels justified and gratified to be sacrificed in such a miserable way for the sake of our sins who nevertheless continue to sin exponentially.

But forgive me for asking! What has Jesus ever done for us aside from the absurdity of dying for our sins? I wonder if that's what he was thinking as he hung there waiting painfully to get it over with.

[godelian]

Perhaps you can better explain. Am I to understand that some physicists, or possibly most (?), who are obviously involved both with mathematics and science models, do not subscribe to the determinism theory or model?

A scientist may, of course, subscribe to a non-scientific theory.

In fact, a scientist often has to. For example, the epistemology of science is not a scientific theory. Karl Popper did not test anything experimentally to support his seminal paper, "Science as falsification".

If the determinism model is (merely) mathematical, but not necessarily one of physics, what would “true” physicists say about this on-going conversation?
Why then is determinism, as a general model, accepted?

Mathematics can often still say things about idealized theories but at some point mathematics will also fail, because the propositions will ultimately fall outside the scope of metamathematics.

In its broadest incarnation, determinism is philosophy, as it cannot be tested experimentally nor proved axiomatically.

In that sense, philosophy is an exercise in rationality that does not lend itself to any standardized method, such as the scientific method or the axiomatic method. If problem at hand goes up sufficiently on the metalevel ladder, this will invariably be the case.

It is not possible to justify the axiomatic method axiomatically. It is also not possible to justify the scientific method scientifically.

A "true" physicist will undoubtedly understand that the subject at hand is in fact philosophical.