Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

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. The belief that you can simply will yourself into action without external cause is pure fantasy, the kind of self-deception reserved for fairy tales and bad philosophy.

Here is what I find interesting: it seems to me obvious that the one writing this is actually dealing with and resolving the issue of that which has been determined by availing himself of a unique perspective that is only available to a mind with the capability of standing apart; seeing from a distance; taking existential matters in hand — and acting in relation to the situation presented.

This is in my sense “metaphysical distance” and it is that which must be understood as being “uniquely human”. It is the difference that makes all the difference.

In my view, BigMike ties himself up in contrived knots based in grammatical organization, but then directly and clearly demonstrates the un-truthfulness of what he supposes he is demonstrating beyond all doubt.

He unties his own knot!

[BigMike]

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. The belief that you can simply will yourself into action without external cause is pure fantasy, the kind of self-deception reserved for fairy tales and bad philosophy.

Here is what I find interesting: it seems to me obvious that the one writing this is actually dealing with and resolving the issue of that which has been determined by availing himself of a unique perspective that is only available to a mind with the capability of standing apart; seeing from a distance; taking existential matters in hand — and acting in relation to the situation presented.

This is in my sense “metaphysical distance” and it is that which must be understood as being “uniquely human”. It is the difference that makes all the difference.

In my view, BigMike ties himself up in contrived knots based in grammatical organization, but then directly and clearly demonstrates the un-truthfulness of what he supposes he is demonstrating beyond all doubt.

He unties his own knot!

Alexis, let’s not waste time with these pretentious riddles you wrap yourself in. If you have actual evidence—real, measurable, empirical evidence—to back up whatever nonsense claim you’re making about “metaphysical distance” or the supposed “uniquely human” ability to transcend deterministic processes, then show it. Show your evidence. Lay it out, clearly, concisely, and with the rigor necessary for it to stand up to scrutiny.

But if all you have are vague insinuations, rhetorical flourishes, and pseudo-philosophical posturing, then, frankly, shut the fuck up. Because I’m not interested in chasing shadows or indulging unsupported assertions that crumble under even the slightest pressure of reason and science.

Your move. Evidence or silence.

[henry quirk]

Lay it out, clearly, concisely, and with the rigor necessary for it to stand up to scrutiny.

It's you, Mike. You are the proof. You are a free will. You act as a free will. You write as a free will. You assess and judge as a free will. You act. You choose. You propose. You counter. You founder. You fail. You. It's you.

The burden, then, is not on AJ, but on you. Where are your evidences, your proofs, that your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill?

Where are your evidences that you don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions?

Where are your proofs that you are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.?

As it stands now: you've offered none. You have, however, offered plenty to show yourself as you are: a free will.

[BigMike]

Lay it out, clearly, concisely, and with the rigor necessary for it to stand up to scrutiny.

It's you, Mike. You are the proof. You are a free will. You act as a free will. You write as a free will. You assess and judge as a free will. You act. You choose. You propose. You counter. You founder. You fail. You. It's you.

The burden, then, is not on AJ, but on you. Where are your evidences, your proofs, that your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill?

Where are your evidences that you don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions?

Where are your proofs that you are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.?

As it stands now: you've offered none. You have, however, offered plenty to show yourself as you are: a free will.

Henry, your claim that I am somehow "proof" of free will is as hollow as it is lazy. Pointing to my actions, my words, or my reasoning as evidence of metaphysical free will is a tired rhetorical trick that conveniently sidesteps the actual question. Let’s be clear: actions and choices can and do occur within a deterministic framework. What you’re mistaking for "proof" of free will is simply the observable result of complex causal processes.

Here’s a simple challenge for you: demonstrate one instance of a human action that is not the product of prior causes. Show me a thought, desire, or decision that arises independently of genetic predispositions, environmental factors, or the physical operations of the brain. If you can’t do that, your insistence on free will becomes nothing more than an emotional appeal—an attempt to cling to comforting illusions rather than confronting reality.

I’ve explained how determinism accounts for the phenomena you attribute to free will. It doesn’t deny that I “act” or “choose”; it explains how those actions and choices arise—through neural processes governed by physical laws. The fact that you interpret this as free will is not proof of its existence; it’s proof of your misunderstanding of causality and the deterministic nature of the brain.

If you can’t bring evidence to the table, Henry, maybe it’s time to reconsider who really bears the burden of proof here.

[henry quirk]

demonstrate one instance of a human action that is not the product of prior causes.

I have. It's you, Mike.

You, in this forum, present yourself as a free will. You never say I'm here offering these as ideas becuz it's causally inevitable I should. All your posts scream I am a free will! I've chosen to believe in determinism! Here's why you should choose to believe in determinism as well!

So: the burden is on you. Please prove, or at least offer evidence, that you, BigMike, are as you say you are: without control of your thoughts, desires, or decisions.

[BigMike]

demonstrate one instance of a human action that is not the product of prior causes.

I have. It's you, Mike.

You, in this forum, present yourself as a free will. You never say I'm here offering these as ideas becuz it's causally inevitable I should. All your posts scream I am a free will! I've chosen to believe in determinism! Here's why you should choose to believe in determinism as well!

So: the burden is on you. Please prove, or at least offer evidence, that you, BigMike, are as you say you are: without control of your thoughts, desires, or decisions.

Henry, my posts don’t “scream” anything about free will, except that it’s a load of nonsense—a comforting fairy tale people cling to because they can’t handle the truth of determinism. I don’t claim that my mind can push a single atom around, make it float across the room, or initiate an action potential in my brain by sheer willpower. That would be psychokinesis—a ridiculous, fraudulent superstition. And yet, here you are, parroting the same tired misconceptions as if my acknowledgment of determinism somehow makes me a poster child for free will. Newsflash: it doesn’t.

I’ve never said I “choose” determinism because, as I’ve explained repeatedly, choices themselves are the result of prior causes—inputs, processing, and outputs dictated by the structure of the brain and the environment in which it operates. That’s not free will; that’s physics. What you interpret as “choice” is nothing more than the deterministic unfolding of events, and your inability to grasp this distinction is as frustrating as it is laughable.

So let me turn this around on you: prove that you, Henry, are capable of a single action—just one—that is not the result of prior causes. Show me where in your brain a decision arises magically, unbound by the laws of physics. Until you can do that, spare me the baseless accusations and childish rhetoric. You’re not making an argument; you’re flailing against reality. And frankly, it’s embarrassing to watch.

[henry quirk]

So, you're still thinkin', writin', actin' like a free will, Mike.

And, not one jot of evidence offered, by you, to say otherwise.

Case closed, brother.

[accelafine]

It seems to me that there are two 'issues' here. One that there is no free will, and the other is whether or not what BigMike/AI is espousing is actually 'determinism' at all. I acknowledge that free will is probably hogwash, but you can't have your cake and eat it too...

[seeds]

demonstrate one instance of a human action that is not the product of prior causes.

I have. It's you, Mike.

You, in this forum, present yourself as a free will. You never say I'm here offering these as ideas becuz it's causally inevitable I should. All your posts scream I am a free will! I've chosen to believe in determinism! Here's why you should choose to believe in determinism as well!

So: the burden is on you. Please prove, or at least offer evidence, that you, BigMike, are as you say you are: without control of your thoughts, desires, or decisions.

Henry, my posts don’t “scream” anything about free will, except that it’s a load of nonsense—a comforting fairy tale people cling to because they can’t handle the truth of determinism. I don’t claim that my mind can push a single atom around, make it float across the room, or initiate an action potential in my brain by sheer willpower. That would be psychokinesis—a ridiculous, fraudulent superstition.

Apparently, to the brain that has somehow "chosen" the name "BigMike" to use as its forum moniker...

(and falsely implies that "it" is some sort of personal "my" that is in possession of a mind)

...again, to the brain that goes by the name of "BigMike," what the child and cat are doing in the following gif...



...if real, then it would have to be an instance of "...psychokinesis..." wherein minds make atoms float across the room.

But, how could that be, when, according to the agentless brain named BigMike, minds making atoms float across the room is a "...ridiculous, fraudulent superstition..."?

Therefore, what is taking place in that gif must be some sort of AI chicanery.
_______

[Belinda]

I have. It's you, Mike.

You, in this forum, present yourself as a free will. You never say I'm here offering these as ideas becuz it's causally inevitable I should. All your posts scream I am a free will! I've chosen to believe in determinism! Here's why you should choose to believe in determinism as well!

So: the burden is on you. Please prove, or at least offer evidence, that you, BigMike, are as you say you are: without control of your thoughts, desires, or decisions.

Henry, my posts don’t “scream” anything about free will, except that it’s a load of nonsense—a comforting fairy tale people cling to because they can’t handle the truth of determinism. I don’t claim that my mind can push a single atom around, make it float across the room, or initiate an action potential in my brain by sheer willpower. That would be psychokinesis—a ridiculous, fraudulent superstition.

Apparently, to the brain that has somehow "chosen" the name "BigMike" to use as its forum moniker...

(and falsely implies that "it" is some sort of personal "my" that is in possession of a mind)

...again, to the brain that goes by the name of "BigMike," what the child and cat are doing in the following gif...



...if real, then it would have to be an instance of "...psychokinesis..." wherein minds make atoms float across the room.

But, how could that be, when, according to the agentless brain named BigMike, minds making atoms float across the room is a "...ridiculous, fraudulent superstition..."?

Therefore, what is taking place in that gif must be some sort of AI chicanery.
_______

Seeds, you forget that Cartesian dualism pervades many languages including English. You yourself are a Cartesian dualist. Big Mike is not Cartesian dualist, he's monist.

[henry quirk]

Mike is not a monist. He's a materialist.

[Impenitent]

feline trebuchet training is dangerous

-Imp

[Belinda]

Mike is not a monist. He's a materialist.

Materialism is a variety of monism. The other varieties of monism are idealism (immaterialism), and dual aspect monism.

[henry quirk]

Mike is not a monist. He's a materialist.

Materialism is a variety of monism. The other varieties of monism are idealism (immaterialism), and dual aspect monism.

Technically, yeah, you're right, but...

Materialism is the belief that everything in the universe, including consciousness, can be explained in terms of physical matter and its interactions. This is Mike's view. It's a demeaning, dirty lil belief, unsupported by anything.

Monism, on the other hand, is broader, loftier. It doesn't, by default, reduce a person to meat.

[promethean75]

"It's a demeaning, dirty lil belief, unsupported by anything"

If the evidence for materialism was a snake, it would have bit you, Henry. Like it's so overwhelming and everywhere throughout the universe that you'd have to be a lobotomized brain in a jar to believe otherwise.

Also you did the thing N warned philosophers about doing. You're not wanting to accept a truth because it's disagreable, no fun, demeaning as you put it. That's what Plato did with materialism. The gentleman thought he was too badass to be merely materialism.

That badassedness you feel when you feel like a hylomorph with freewill and a shotgun is the will to power and nothing besides, Hylomorph Henry.