Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

1) …why this conversation is so infuriating for anyone who takes the future of humanity seriously.

It is important to let you know that the entire conversation that you initiated has been super-interesting to me. So I have to say that I am thankful for your presence here. With that said, I believe you will get more out of the conversation, and the opposition that you receive, if you actually understand the reasons and the motivations about why I (and we — some of us) oppose you.

A couple of preliminary statements are necessary. Have you noticed that though I might (and I do) defend Christian belief (the core metaphysics) that I can hardly bear what I understand as Immanuel Can’s religious fanaticism? How is it that one man, who sincerely feels the need to preserve a relationship with the invisible (what God means, what a relationship in a real sense with divinity means, and also what a relationship to *higher metaphysics* means) find himself in such opposition to a supposed co-religionist? The more the reasons for these differences are brought out, the more interesting and useful the conversation becomes.

I recognize that you actually, and I assume sincerely, believe that you represent some sort of vanguard whose purpose is to take the future of humanity seriously. When you talk like this I recognize that I am speaking with an intellectual child. What do I get out of the act of presenting you with information about how potentially misguided you are? You make a serious mistake. You assume that because science (here is one example) pioneered vaccines, and vaccines stop diseases from occurring, that this is equivalent to addressing the needs and problems of man in any profound sense. My view of your discourse? You have failed to actually understand man. So your anthropology and your physiology — according to what you write about — is ignorant of giant realms of knowledge. This fits actually, because what you reveal about yourself is that you are a mathematician, one interested in physics, and that your mind is trained in a certain way. Your entire discourse takes this form, and each of your posts is a restatement of what you have said dozens of times before. Your entire discourse operates with idées fixes. If I had to describe it in harsh terms I would describe it as *intellectual pathology*.

Now, I have just made a harsh assessment of your methods and you will not — you cannot! — take any of it into consideration! But it will become for you a prod to rearm yourself for your Epic Fight and you will come back that much more *aggressively* and trying to *prove* your points.

In this sense, weirdly, I place you and Immanuel Can on a similar plane. He also has idées fixes — I assume you have been amused (if not horrified) by his elaborate performance about an Original Mating Pair? Do you see? His mind is locked into a view from which he CANNOT DEVIATE without (what I assume feels like to him) irreparable harm to his *belief-system*. Intellectually, he has no choice but to double-down on an absurd belief and to give NO GROUND to any view that punctures the certainties of the system.

So your anthropology and can see, and all of us see, that ‘belief systems’ are held to for psychological reasons. The structure of the self, the integrity of the self, seems to be held together by what has been concocted as a perceptual system that must be maintained. What happens if the system is *punctured*? Well, put yourself in his shoes and then turn back to yourself and try to imagine what you would have to go through if your Marvelous Machine of Certainty would receive a blow that began to deflate it for you.

Perhaps what would result for you is what also would result for Immanuel Can? That is, you’d have no alternative but to fall into nihilism’s grip. And here I assert again that, when examined honestly my dear dear child, you are in a MIGHTY BATTLE against that nihilism that, at a peculiar level, does seem to have you in its grip. Thus your views take on notes of RELIGIOUS FANATICISM.

2) Let’s be clear: anyone who genuinely wants to make the world better for actual, living, breathing people engages with the facts.

However, if you were to find those people — say a group of a couple of dozen of them — who dedicate to making the world *better* (and who are said to succeed) it is highly doubtful that their philosophy of life would concur with yours!

You have NO IDEA what actually makes life better! Or, put another way, you have involved yourself in an obsessive project through which you puff yourself up in a rather GRANDIOSE manner. You have concocted a forum personality dedicated to that purpose.

3) Your inability—or unwillingness—to grapple with the hard truths of reality is telling.

I think, my dear boy, that you are projecting. The *hard truths* you say? How can you know if I or anyone else has or has not grappled with hard truths? Are we to assume that you have? But wait, your discourse is very very shallow and you give evidence of being *locked* into specific obsessed-over *beliefs*. How do you expect to be trusted when your discourse is so skewed?

4) Meanwhile, the rest of us—the ones you arrogantly dismiss as "aggressive physicalists"—are too busy solving real problems to entertain your self-indulgent ramblings. Medical breakthroughs, technological advancements, and even the possibility of tackling systemic social issues all stem from understanding and working within the framework of scientific principles.

Now here you say something that I can only agree with. Physical science, medicine — what they do within their realm is of tremendous service and has great value. But what YOU DO is to elevate those attainments, those endeavors, to levels that are in no sense a part of science’s domain. I.e. those issues and question having to do with value and meaning on those planes that you are incapable of considering!

5) show where the flaws are.

I have just indicated where I PERCEIVE there to by many different sorts and levels of error. But for you it amounts to *water off a duck’s back”.

Like Immanuel you only hear what you want to hear!

As I have told you both: I am a late incarnation of The Hyperborean Apollo. I have descended here from regions of thought and knowledge that have been excluded from man’s world for oh so long! Yes, I come with cold breezes that, realistically, can kill with their intensity. But I will show you Mike how you can be killed and then RESURRECT into levels of truth that you cannot even dream of!

Alexis, your response is so drenched in condescension and hollow grandiosity that it would almost be laughable if it weren’t such a sad waste of time. You revel in verbosity, not as a tool for insight, but as a shield to dodge accountability for your ideas. Let’s break this down and expose the emptiness of your posturing.

First, your claim that I "have no idea what makes life better" is as baseless as it is insulting. The advancements in medicine, technology, and science that you grudgingly acknowledge—vaccines, cancer treatments, clean energy, communication systems—are the direct result of people working with facts and principles grounded in observable reality. These are tangible improvements to human life, not the "higher metaphysics" or "Hyperborean Apollo" fantasies you peddle. What have your intellectual musings contributed? What lives have they saved? What problems have they solved? Let me answer for you: none.

Second, your attempt to lump me in with Immanuel Can is laughable. Unlike his dogmatic devotion to late-Bronze Age mythology, I’m not here to prop up fantasies or cling to unverifiable beliefs. I engage with reality—facts, evidence, and logic—while you meander through vague notions of "truth" and "value" without ever offering a concrete point. It’s like watching someone drown in their own inflated sense of importance.

You accuse me of being shallow and obsessed with fixed beliefs, yet you offer no evidence of this beyond your own irritation that I refuse to take your mystical ramblings seriously. If there’s any rigidity in this conversation, it’s in your inability to engage with scientific principles on their own terms. You keep deflecting with nonsense about "levels of truth" and "cold breezes" as though these abstract metaphors somehow justify your lack of substance.

Now, let’s address your claim that I’m locked into a "grandiose project." I am focused on the real-world implications of science and reason because they have demonstrable value. This isn’t about me puffing myself up—it’s about advocating for a worldview that prioritizes truth, evidence, and practical solutions. If that offends your delicate sensibilities, maybe it’s because you can’t offer anything of similar weight or impact.

Lastly, your self-aggrandizing conclusion about "resurrecting me into levels of truth I can’t dream of" is as absurd as it is pretentious. You’ve contributed nothing of substance to this discussion beyond flowery language and unprovable claims. If that’s your idea of intellectual superiority, it’s no wonder you’re floundering in this conversation.

So here’s a challenge for you, Alexis: stop hiding behind metaphors and show me something real. Demonstrate how your "higher intellect" has made a measurable impact on the world. If you can’t, then spare us your pompous drivel and step aside for those of us who are actually trying to make a difference.

[Alexis Jacobi]

God you are a moron! You simply CANNOT LISTEN.

AND NOW LOOK WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO MY CAPS LOCK!

[BigMike]

I’ve asked you to show evidence of your god doing something tangible, like making an electric charge appear out of nowhere, violating conservation laws.

You're saying that if God threw a bold of lightning, that would prove His existence to you? I don't think it would. I don't think it would even prove to the Greeks the existence of Zeus, or to vikings the existence of Thor, let alone to you the existence of the real God. And exactly how would you confirm to yourself that the lightning bolt had "violated conservation laws"? What's your method for testing for that?

I'll warrant you'd say, "Well, that was normal lightning, and it didn't violate anything." Why wouldn't you think that? Even I wouldn't believe a "test" like that one.

No, be serious: what would a REAL test look like to you?

Immanuel, your response is almost as ludicrous as it is evasive. Let me remind you—since you seem determined to miss the point—that I’m not asking for something that could be confused with a natural phenomenon like a lightning bolt. I’m asking for something that defies the fundamental principles of physics, something unambiguously supernatural.

You know, something that your so-called omnipotent God should be able to accomplish with zero effort, like making an electric charge appear out of nowhere, violating the conservation of charge. Not "normal lightning," not "vague feelings of divine presence," and certainly not the tired tales from your holy texts. I’m talking about evidence that leaves no doubt, no plausible alternative explanation.

And spare me the deflection about how one might test for such an event. It’s a disingenuous attempt to sidestep the core challenge. Scientists measure charge, energy, and their conservation all the time. If a phenomenon occurred that broke these principles, it would be detectable. We have the tools, the methods, and the expertise. What we don’t have is your God stepping up to demonstrate anything.

So here’s the real issue, Immanuel: you’ve been asked repeatedly to provide evidence for your God, and all you’ve delivered is avoidance, hand-waving, and incredulous reactions. If your God is real, omnipotent, and concerned with being known, He wouldn’t need you as His defense attorney. He’d show up and do something undeniable. The fact that He hasn’t is not my problem—it’s yours. So stop dodging the question and either present evidence or admit that you have none. Anything else is just wasting everyone’s time.

[BigMike]

God you are a moron! You simply CANNOT LISTEN.

AND NOW LOOK WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO MY CAPS LOCK!

Alexis, it's genuinely impressive how quickly you’ve descended into this tantrum. Is this your idea of a reasoned argument? Caps lock and insults? Bravo—you’ve managed to communicate nothing except your inability to engage with even the simplest points without throwing a fit.

If you’re this worked up, I’d suggest taking a step back and maybe re-evaluating whether you’re even capable of holding a rational discussion. Because as of now, your contribution is little more than noise. If you’ve got something substantive to say, say it. If not, maybe it’s time to stop wasting everyone’s time with your flailing attempts at discourse.

[Atla]

God you are a moron! You simply CANNOT LISTEN.

AND NOW LOOK WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO MY CAPS LOCK!

But you only had to press it once. Age is bored to tears by that.

[Immanuel Can]

No, be serious: what would a REAL test look like to you?

I’m asking for something that defies the fundamental principles of physics,

A miracle, you mean. As you say, "something unambiguously supernatural." No, I've got it.

How are you going to test for it? If a flash of lightning happened, how are you going to know it "defied the fundamental principles of physics"?

How are you going to manage to verify and decisively differentiate it from a mere "improbability" (but one that is within the realm of the "fundamental principles of physics), so that you cannot doubt it anymore?

[BigMike]

Alexis, let’s break this down in terms that even you might find difficult to twist into irrelevance. Metaphysics, at its core, is about understanding the fundamental nature of reality—what exists, how it exists, and why it exists. When properly grounded, metaphysics is the foundation upon which science builds its models. It deals with concepts like causality, space, time, and matter, all of which are critical to making sense of the universe.

Now, let’s tie this to determinism and science. The conservation laws—energy, momentum, charge, etc.—and the four fundamental interactions—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force—are not arbitrary ideas pulled out of thin air. They are observable, testable, and repeatable principles that describe how everything in the universe behaves. These principles aren’t just "scientific facts"; they are the scaffolding of reality. Every single thing that happens—whether it’s the motion of galaxies or the firing of neurons in your brain—happens within the boundaries of these laws and interactions. That’s determinism in action: the consistent, causally connected unfolding of reality governed by universal principles.

Now, let’s talk about the kind of "metaphysics" you seem to champion—this hand-wavy mysticism and speculative nonsense that thinks it can operate outside the constraints of reality. It’s the intellectual equivalent of a dog chasing its tail: it produces a lot of movement but goes absolutely nowhere. Your "higher intellect" metaphysics has no grounding in the observable universe, no connection to causality, and no explanatory power. It’s not even wrong—it’s irrelevant. Speculation divorced from reality is just noise. It doesn’t matter how eloquently you dress it up or how much you insist on its profundity; if it doesn’t interact with observable, testable phenomena, it’s as useful as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Real metaphysics underpins determinism because it deals with what’s real. It doesn’t concern itself with unverifiable fantasies or vague notions of mystical realms. Instead, it asks the tough, grounded questions: What is causality? How do physical principles govern interactions? What’s the relationship between observable phenomena and the laws that describe them? These are the kinds of questions that lead to advancements in science, technology, and understanding—the kind that make the world better, instead of spiraling into the intellectual black hole of metaphysical daydreaming.

So, Alexis, if you want to talk about metaphysics, great. But let’s stick to the kind that acknowledges the reality we all live in, not the kind that floats aimlessly in the ether of mysticism and meaningless speculation. If you’re unwilling to do that, then maybe metaphysics isn’t your game—stick to something simpler, like shouting into the void. At least the void might listen.

[Atla]

I am a late incarnation of The Hyperborean Apollo. I have descended here from regions of thought and knowledge that have been excluded from man’s world for oh so long! Yes, I come with cold breezes that, realistically, can kill with their intensity. But I will show you Mike how you can be killed and then RESURRECT into levels of truth that you cannot even dream of!

Are you training to become a cult leader? In order to be a successful cult leader, maybe you could be more explicit about these higher realms of thought and knowledge.

[BigMike]

No, be serious: what would a REAL test look like to you?

I’m asking for something that defies the fundamental principles of physics,

A miracle, you mean. As you say, "something unambiguously supernatural." No, I've got it.

How are you going to test for it? If a flash of lightning happened, how are you going to know it "defied the fundamental principles of physics"?

How are you going to manage to verify and decisively differentiate it from a mere "improbability" (but one that is within the realm of the "fundamental principles of physics), so that you cannot doubt it anymore?

Immanuel, you’re either missing the point entirely or pretending not to get it. What I’m asking for is straightforward: something that clearly violates the fundamental principles of physics, specifically the conservation laws or the four fundamental interactions. Not "improbable," not "unexpected," but impossible under the current framework that governs everything we observe. You know, the actual, measurable laws of reality.

Now, let me spell it out: if an electric charge, for instance, spontaneously appeared out of nowhere—violating the conservation of charge—it would not be explainable within our current understanding of physics. That would be evidence of something acting beyond or outside the established laws. Got it? Not lightning, which is very well understood (and governed by electromagnetism), but something that shatters what we know to be universally consistent.

And let’s cut this nonsense about how I’d "test for it." This isn’t about me whipping out a lab kit in a thunderstorm. It’s about your God supposedly being omnipotent and capable of anything. If that’s true, He shouldn’t have a problem making something happen that clearly defies the laws of physics. Not something ambiguous. Not something debatable. Something undeniable—even to scientists who don’t share your faith.

But instead of addressing this, you retreat into semantics and distractions. Why? Is it because you realize how conveniently elusive your God is when it comes to real-world evidence? How conveniently everything that’s claimed to be a miracle somehow fits within what we already know about the natural world? Your refusal to engage honestly with this question only proves the emptiness of your argument. If your God is real, let Him step up and do something that genuinely can’t be explained by science. Otherwise, let’s call this what it is: a failure to provide any evidence at all.

[Immanuel Can]

I’m asking for something that defies the fundamental principles of physics,

A miracle, you mean. As you say, "something unambiguously supernatural." No, I've got it.

How are you going to test for it? If a flash of lightning happened, how are you going to know it "defied the fundamental principles of physics"?

How are you going to manage to verify and decisively differentiate it from a mere "improbability" (but one that is within the realm of the "fundamental principles of physics), so that you cannot doubt it anymore?

Immanuel, you’re either missing the point entirely or pretending not to get it. What I’m asking for is straightforward: something that clearly violates the fundamental principles of physics, specifically the conservation laws or the four fundamental interactions.

I am getting it. And I'm saying you'd have to specify it, so as to be able to test it. Otherwise, there's no reason for you to believe it's a "supernatural" event at all. So I'm asking what your proposed method would be.

Now, let me spell it out: if an electric charge, for instance, spontaneously appeared out of nowhere—violating the conservation of charge—it would not be explainable within our current understanding of physics. That would be evidence of something acting beyond or outside the established laws. Got it?

Whether I "get it" isn't the question: the question is, "How would YOU be able to get it?"

Let's say that happened. There are two obvious possibilities: one, that you've witnessed a miracle. The other is that what you've observed is not actually contrary to laws of physics, but (as you put the case) only not "explainable within our current understanding of physics." In which case, your rational and scientific course would be to revise your understanding of the laws of physics, to as to include the new phenomenon. But it would not guarantee that you would have to accept it as miraculous.

So you haven't solved the problem. How is God going to convince you that what you observe is not simply a new phenomenon that can eventually fit within a current paradigm of physics, but is instead, something that can NEVER be incorporated into any such worldview: i.e. a genuine miracle?

It’s about your God supposedly being omnipotent and capable of anything.

Well, this isn't what we believe. We believe that God is potentially "capable" of anything, in the sense that He possesses potential ability to do many things He does not choose to do. Right now, judging the world is one of those things: He has power and potential to do it, but has chosen not to do it, because it is not presently harmonious with His purposes. So omnipotence is not the same as "being forced to do all possible things." That's ridiculous, and self-contradicting: how can an all-powerful Entity be "forced" to do anything?

We also know He is committed to doing only those things that are consonant with His own nature and purposes. So forcing you to believe against your will would be possible to Him: but it would obviously contradict His purpose in giving you a personality and freedom of will (even if you don't believe such a thing exists). And God Himself does not do the ridiculous and self-contradictory, such as forcing somebody to believe. For then, belief is inauthentic, and this is useless for God's purposes of establishing relationship with mankind. We would be mere robots.

He shouldn’t have a problem making something happen that clearly defies the laws of physics.

He doesn't. It's no problem at all. In fact, he's done it many times: most remarkably, by raising the dead. But you've asked more: you ask that He must do it in your presence, in such a way that YOU can't deny what He's done. And right now, that doesn't suit His timetable and purposes. He's God, you know: you can't make Him do parlour tricks for you; and if you could, then He wouldn't be God.

But He's definitely suspended what you call the "laws" of nature. He split the Red Sea. He made water come from rocks, and wine come from water. He defied the "laws" of hydrodynamics, of disease, and of time itself. He wiped out an entire army of enemies overnight. He raised His Son from the dead. But you don't have a testing method for any of those things. So, by the criteria you've set, we can't refer to any of them to convince you.

But He will convince you. When his purposes with us are complete, He will judge the earth. And at that time, He promises, "every knee shall bow." Yours will, too. So He not only has the omnipotence to do it; He has promised He WILL do it, and you will know He's done it.

But you don't get to play control-games with God. You don't get to demand He jump to cater to your cynicism. If you think you do, you've forgotten who is God. And you don't get to avoid the judgment, when it comes. So nothing "elusive" is going on, either for me or for you. There's no "eluding" this.

[iambiguous]

Why won't you answer the very simple question, "What evidence would you accept?"
Is it because there's NO evidence you'd accept?

That again. Like an omniscient/omnipotent God couldn't come up with a way in which to prove His own existence to mere mortals down here.

Nobody can provide evidence to somebody who simply refuses to accept any evidence as evidence.

For the sake of all those here who will burn in Hell for all of eternity if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, please provide us with what you believe is the strongest scientific and historical evidence for the existence of the Christian God.

Souls are at stake here.

Right, henry?

[BigMike]

A miracle, you mean. As you say, "something unambiguously supernatural." No, I've got it.

How are you going to test for it? If a flash of lightning happened, how are you going to know it "defied the fundamental principles of physics"?

How are you going to manage to verify and decisively differentiate it from a mere "improbability" (but one that is within the realm of the "fundamental principles of physics), so that you cannot doubt it anymore?

Immanuel, you’re either missing the point entirely or pretending not to get it. What I’m asking for is straightforward: something that clearly violates the fundamental principles of physics, specifically the conservation laws or the four fundamental interactions.

I am getting it. And I'm saying you'd have to specify it, so as to be able to test it. Otherwise, there's no reason for you to believe it's a "supernatural" event at all. So I'm asking what your proposed method would be.

Now, let me spell it out: if an electric charge, for instance, spontaneously appeared out of nowhere—violating the conservation of charge—it would not be explainable within our current understanding of physics. That would be evidence of something acting beyond or outside the established laws. Got it?

Whether I "get it" isn't the question: the question is, "How would YOU be able to get it?"

Let's say that happened. There are two obvious possibilities: one, that you've witnessed a miracle. The other is that what you've observed is not actually contrary to laws of physics, but (as you put the case) only not "explainable within our current understanding of physics." In which case, your rational and scientific course would be to revise your understanding of the laws of physics, to as to include the new phenomenon. But it would not guarantee that you would have to accept it as miraculous.

So you haven't solved the problem. How is God going to convince you that what you observe is not simply a new phenomenon that can eventually fit within a current paradigm of physics, but is instead, something that can NEVER be incorporated into any such worldview: i.e. a genuine miracle?

It’s about your God supposedly being omnipotent and capable of anything.

Well, this isn't what we believe. We believe that God is potentially "capable" of anything, in the sense that He possesses potential ability to do many things He does not choose to do. Right now, judging the world is one of those things: He has power and potential to do it, but has chosen not to do it, because it is not presently harmonious with His purposes. So omnipotence is not the same as "being forced to do all possible things." That's ridiculous, and self-contradicting: how can an all-powerful Entity be "forced" to do anything?

We also know He is committed to doing only those things that are consonant with His own nature and purposes. So forcing you to believe against your will would be possible to Him: but it would obviously contradict His purpose in giving you a personality and freedom of will (even if you don't believe such a thing exists). And God Himself does not do the ridiculous and self-contradictory, such as forcing somebody to believe. For then, belief is inauthentic, and this is useless for God's purposes of establishing relationship with mankind. We would be mere robots.

He shouldn’t have a problem making something happen that clearly defies the laws of physics.

He doesn't. It's no problem at all. In fact, he's done it many times: most remarkably, by raising the dead. But you've asked more: you ask that He must do it in your presence, in such a way that YOU can't deny what He's done. And right now, that doesn't suit His timetable and purposes. He's God, you know: you can't make Him do parlour tricks for you; and if you could, then He wouldn't be God.

But He's definitely suspended what you call the "laws" of nature. He split the Red Sea. He made water come from rocks, and wine come from water. He defied the "laws" of hydrodynamics, of disease, and of time itself. He wiped out an entire army of enemies overnight. He raised His Son from the dead. But you don't have a testing method for any of those things. So, by the criteria you've set, we can't refer to any of them to convince you.

But He will convince you. When his purposes with us are complete, He will judge the earth. And at that time, He promises, "every knee shall bow." Yours will, too. So He not only has the omnipotence to do it; He has promised He WILL do it, and you will know He's done it.

But you don't get to play control-games with God. You don't get to demand He jump to cater to your cynicism. If you think you do, you've forgotten who is God. And you don't get to avoid the judgment, when it comes. So nothing "elusive" is going on, either for me or for you. There's no "eluding" this.

Immanuel, your response is the pinnacle of circular reasoning and unfalsifiable claims. You’ve essentially built an argument where your God operates in a way that’s conveniently unverifiable, untestable, and outside the realm of rational scrutiny, yet somehow still expects belief. Let’s unpack this nonsense, starting with your so-called "evidence."

You rattle off a list of supposed divine interventions—the Red Sea parting, water turning into wine, the resurrection of Jesus—all of which are stories handed down from ancient texts. None of these are verifiable, repeatable, or supported by empirical evidence. You admit this yourself, yet you cling to these anecdotes as if their inclusion in a book somehow elevates them above myth or legend. Hearsay is not evidence, no matter how fervently you believe it.

Then you move the goalposts entirely. You say God doesn’t perform miracles for "parlour tricks," as if the concept of evidence-based belief is beneath Him. But isn’t that precisely what those biblical miracles were? Public displays intended to convince doubters of His power? How is it reasonable for you to cite those as proof for your faith while claiming God no longer operates that way because it would undermine free will? That’s intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

You also attempt to downplay my example of a clear violation of the conservation laws—such as the spontaneous creation of an electric charge—by asking how one could differentiate it from an unexplained phenomenon. That’s disingenuous. The scientific process is perfectly capable of recognizing when something violates known physical principles. If a phenomenon truly defied the conservation of charge, it would be recognized as something extraordinary and unexplained by any current understanding of physics. But instead of engaging with this point, you brush it off and retreat into mysticism.

And then there’s the audacity of claiming that God "will convince me" by judging the earth and forcing "every knee to bow." What’s the point of free will in your framework, Immanuel, if your God’s ultimate plan is coercion? Your own argument eats itself alive. You say He doesn’t force belief because that would undermine autonomy, yet you claim He’ll eventually impose His will so forcefully that everyone will bow in submission. That’s not free will—it’s a cosmic dictatorship.

Here’s the reality: your claims boil down to nothing but unverifiable assertions. You can’t present evidence that stands up to scrutiny, and you rely on ancient myths to fill the gap. Worse, you dismiss calls for clear, demonstrable evidence as "control games," all while demanding that everyone accept your incoherent theology without question. The burden of proof is on you, Immanuel—not me, not science, not anyone else. And so far, you’ve done nothing but dodge the challenge. Until you can present something tangible—something real—you’re just another voice spouting empty rhetoric about a god that exists only in your imagination.

[Immanuel Can]

You’ve essentially built an argument where your God operates in a way that’s conveniently unverifiable, untestable, and outside the realm of rational scrutiny, yet somehow still expects belief.

Well, firstly, Mike...I didn't invent it. It's the Biblical view.

But secondly, it's very far from unverifiable, untestable and outside the realm of rational scrutiny. It's well within all three, actually. What's it's not inside is the demand that God should force you to believe...somehow...even though you refuse to believe, and aren't even willing to specify a test you could actually be expected to accept.

Verification, testing and rational scrutiny, you say? Well, all three are readily available. Just not on the terms you might like. If you examine Christ, you'll verify the existence of God. If you have even a mustard-sized faith in God, you'll be able to test and see what He'll do. And rational scrutiny? He who said, "Come, let us reason together" is also He who invented rationality. So you'll have no problem with that.

However, your commitment to Determinism will make that impossible. You have no faith in the existence or goodness of God -- not even enough to test. You don't have any faith in your own (or my) ability to choose an decide, which God has chosen to make the sine qua non of knowledge of Him.

The man who will believe in nothing sees nothing. Not even himself. That's what's really going on.

You rattle off a list of supposed divine interventions—the Red Sea parting, water turning into wine, the resurrection of Jesus—all of which are stories handed down from ancient texts. None of these are verifiable, repeatable, or supported by empirical evidence. You admit this yourself, yet you cling to these anecdotes as if their inclusion in a book somehow elevates them above myth or legend. Hearsay is not evidence, no matter how fervently you believe it.

Actually, if they did, indeed, happen, then they most certainly WOULD BE evidence...just not for you. For you will accept NOTHING as evidence, at least nothing that cannot be explained another way very easily.

So you have no test for knowing whether or not God exists, but you insist He cannot. Nothing about that is rational, since you cannot expect that you already know everything, nor that you can even know what others know, nor can you know what, of the miraculous nature, has happened in history. There's no rational connection, then, between your claim of the non-existence of God, and what anybody can expect you actually to have any way to know.

But you're adopting a very interesting position: you scorn God, you deny His existence, and you dare Him -- you dare the Supreme Being -- to dance to convince you in such a way that you cannot doubt...without specifying what that would be.

Here's your surprise: He's promised He will do exactly that. In the fulness of time, He will convince you, beyond any possibility of doubt, of His existence, His power, and His rightness. But when He does, you want to arrive before him in the guise of a mocker, a skeptic, a disdainer, a cynic, who has enjoyed heaping scorn and calling God powerless?

Well, you're a brave man, I must say. Not a wise one, but very, very brave. And if you persist in your "bravery," you'll get exactly the thing you're asking for -- and won't have any grounds of complaint when you get it. You've been asking for it...longing for it...demanding it...and insulting God in order to get it...or rather, to sustain the claim that God can't do it.

Brave. Very brave.

You say God doesn’t perform miracles for "parlour tricks," as if the concept of evidence-based belief is beneath Him. But isn’t that precisely what those biblical miracles were?

Not at all, actually. The difference is in who gets to say what happens, when and how. You seem to be under the impression that person should be you...but it's not.

Public displays intended to convince doubters of His power? How is it reasonable for you to cite those as proof for your faith while claiming God no longer operates that way because it would undermine free will?

Very simple: miracles do not generally serve the function you attribute to them. You seem to think that they make disbelief impossible; but they never do. There is, as in the case of your own lightning test, always another way to spin the miraculous...to say, "Well, I know it looks like a miracle, but really, it wasn't." That was true of the Red Sea crossing, of the walking on the water, of the identity of Messiah Himself, and of the Resurrection itself, as the text readily makes clear itself. There is literally no 'test' no miraculous demonstration that we presently have that is beyond the power of cynicism to controvert.

But the Great Judgment will be everything you're asking for. Be careful what you wish, therefore.

You also attempt to downplay my example of a clear violation of the conservation laws—such as the spontaneous creation of an electric charge—by asking how one could differentiate it from an unexplained phenomenon.

I don't attempt to downplay it. I just ask how you'd test it. And you don't know, it seems.

Which would you do: admit the miracle, or revise your "current understanding of physics," and persist in your skepticism? I think we both know.

And then there’s the audacity of claiming that God "will convince me" by judging the earth and forcing "every knee to bow."

That's not my audacity. That's His explicit promise.

What’s the point of free will in your framework, Immanuel, if your God’s ultimate plan is coercion?

Don't worry: you have your free will already. You're actualizing it fully, right now. When the incontrovertible evidence appears, it will appear not to a mindless robot or forced believer, but rather to you -- a determined cynic, who's already exercised his free will to decide his own eternal disposition relative to the God he despises and scorns.

It'll be fair. And it will be an actualization, even a respecting of your free will. In that sense, there are no unwilling souls in Hell. If you end up there, it will be the place you willed yourself.

I would prefer you didn't. Hence the point of this discussion: not a "win" for somebody, but rather the ensuring that whatever it is you get, that you've had a chance to freely choose it.

That’s not free will—it’s a cosmic dictatorship.

How ironic. You demand that you will not believe in God unless He provides you with an unspecified but incontrovertible test -- and then you point out that if He did so, he'd be a "cosmic dictator"? Now you know why, for the present, He does not do that. You've answered your own question -- if only you understood how. Here's what the Word of God says:

"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be disclosed..."

It's coming. For now, you have free will. But the day will come when what you have done with your free will will be confirmed for you, sealed by the very hand of God Himself...your free will written for you in stone. And the disposition of the soul you presently deny you even possess will be decided according to your explicit demands. If you want to be in a place without God, you'll get it.

Whatever burden of proof you place on God and on me will be met. Don't worry. But what will you do with the burden of having despised God and chosen a world without Him?

[BigMike]

You’ve essentially built an argument where your God operates in a way that’s conveniently unverifiable, untestable, and outside the realm of rational scrutiny, yet somehow still expects belief.

Well, firstly, Mike...I didn't invent it. It's the Biblical view.

But secondly, it's very far from unverifiable, untestable and outside the realm of rational scrutiny. It's well within all three, actually. What's it's not inside is the demand that God should force you to believe...somehow...even though you refuse to believe, and aren't even willing to specify a test you could actually be expected to accept.

Verification, testing and rational scrutiny, you say? Well, all three are readily available. Just not on the terms you might like. If you examine Christ, you'll verify the existence of God. If you have even a mustard-sized faith in God, you'll be able to test and see what He'll do. And rational scrutiny? He who said, "Come, let us reason together" is also He who invented rationality. So you'll have no problem with that.

However, your commitment to Determinism will make that impossible. You have no faith in the existence or goodness of God -- not even enough to test. You don't have any faith in your own (or my) ability to choose an decide, which God has chosen to make the sine qua non of knowledge of Him.

The man who will believe in nothing sees nothing. Not even himself. That's what's really going on.

You rattle off a list of supposed divine interventions—the Red Sea parting, water turning into wine, the resurrection of Jesus—all of which are stories handed down from ancient texts. None of these are verifiable, repeatable, or supported by empirical evidence. You admit this yourself, yet you cling to these anecdotes as if their inclusion in a book somehow elevates them above myth or legend. Hearsay is not evidence, no matter how fervently you believe it.

Actually, if they did, indeed, happen, then they most certainly WOULD BE evidence...just not for you. For you will accept NOTHING as evidence, at least nothing that cannot be explained another way very easily.

So you have no test for knowing whether or not God exists, but you insist He cannot. Nothing about that is rational, since you cannot expect that you already know everything, nor that you can even know what others know, nor can you know what, of the miraculous nature, has happened in history. There's no rational connection, then, between your claim of the non-existence of God, and what anybody can expect you actually to have any way to know.

But you're adopting a very interesting position: you scorn God, you deny His existence, and you dare Him -- you dare the Supreme Being -- to dance to convince you in such a way that you cannot doubt...without specifying what that would be.

Here's your surprise: He's promised He will do exactly that. In the fulness of time, He will convince you, beyond any possibility of doubt, of His existence, His power, and His rightness. But when He does, you want to arrive before him in the guise of a mocker, a skeptic, a disdainer, a cynic, who has enjoyed heaping scorn and calling God powerless?

Well, you're a brave man, I must say. Not a wise one, but very, very brave. And if you persist in your "bravery," you'll get exactly the thing you're asking for -- and won't have any grounds of complaint when you get it. You've been asking for it...longing for it...demanding it...and insulting God in order to get it...or rather, to sustain the claim that God can't do it.

Brave. Very brave.

You say God doesn’t perform miracles for "parlour tricks," as if the concept of evidence-based belief is beneath Him. But isn’t that precisely what those biblical miracles were?

Not at all, actually. The difference is in who gets to say what happens, when and how. You seem to be under the impression that person should be you...but it's not.

Public displays intended to convince doubters of His power? How is it reasonable for you to cite those as proof for your faith while claiming God no longer operates that way because it would undermine free will?

Very simple: miracles do not generally serve the function you attribute to them. You seem to think that they make disbelief impossible; but they never do. There is, as in the case of your own lightning test, always another way to spin the miraculous...to say, "Well, I know it looks like a miracle, but really, it wasn't." That was true of the Red Sea crossing, of the walking on the water, of the identity of Messiah Himself, and of the Resurrection itself, as the text readily makes clear itself. There is literally no 'test' no miraculous demonstration that we presently have that is beyond the power of cynicism to controvert.

But the Great Judgment will be everything you're asking for. Be careful what you wish, therefore.

You also attempt to downplay my example of a clear violation of the conservation laws—such as the spontaneous creation of an electric charge—by asking how one could differentiate it from an unexplained phenomenon.

I don't attempt to downplay it. I just ask how you'd test it. And you don't know, it seems.

Which would you do: admit the miracle, or revise your "current understanding of physics," and persist in your skepticism? I think we both know.

And then there’s the audacity of claiming that God "will convince me" by judging the earth and forcing "every knee to bow."

That's not my audacity. That's His explicit promise.

What’s the point of free will in your framework, Immanuel, if your God’s ultimate plan is coercion?

Don't worry: you have your free will already. You're actualizing it fully, right now. When the incontrovertible evidence appears, it will appear not to a mindless robot or forced believer, but rather to you -- a determined cynic, who's already exercised his free will to decide his own eternal disposition relative to the God he despises and scorns.

It'll be fair. And it will be an actualization, even a respecting of your free will. In that sense, there are no unwilling souls in Hell. If you end up there, it will be the place you willed yourself.

I would prefer you didn't. Hence the point of this discussion: not a "win" for somebody, but rather the ensuring that whatever it is you get, that you've had a chance to freely choose it.

That’s not free will—it’s a cosmic dictatorship.

How ironic. You demand that you will not believe in God unless He provides you with an unspecified but incontrovertible test -- and then you point out that if He did so, he'd be a "cosmic dictator"? Now you know why, for the present, He does not do that. You've answered your own question -- if only you understood how. Here's what the Word of God says:

"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be disclosed..."

It's coming. For now, you have free will. But the day will come when what you have done with your free will will be confirmed for you, sealed by the very hand of God Himself...your free will written for you in stone. And the disposition of the soul you presently deny you even possess will be decided according to your explicit demands. If you want to be in a place without God, you'll get it.

Whatever burden of proof you place on God and on me will be met. Don't worry. But what will you do with the burden of having despised God and chosen a world without Him?

Immanuel, your response is a masterclass in contradiction and unsubstantiated assertions. Let’s unpack your rhetoric and expose its incoherence for what it is.

First, you claim that your God’s existence is "well within" verification, testing, and rational scrutiny, only to immediately undermine this by asserting that God doesn’t perform "parlour tricks" for the sake of evidence. Which is it, Immanuel? Is God’s existence verifiable, or is He deliberately elusive? You can’t have it both ways. Your entire argument rests on the premise that God is simultaneously obvious to anyone willing to see and completely beyond the reach of empirical scrutiny. That’s not logic—it’s cognitive dissonance.

Second, you bring up miracles from the Bible as if they hold any weight in this discussion. Stories of the Red Sea parting or water turning into wine are anecdotes from ancient texts, nothing more. You can’t use the Bible as evidence for God when the very existence of God is what’s under scrutiny. That’s the definition of circular reasoning. If these miracles were real and verifiable, they’d leave traces, corroborating evidence, or even a means of empirical validation. But they don’t. Instead, we have nothing but stories handed down over millennia, riddled with contradictions and unprovable claims.

Then there’s your "judgment day" threat—your fallback position when all else fails. You claim that every knee will bow, that incontrovertible evidence will be provided, and that those who don’t believe now will have no choice but to acknowledge God. Let’s call this what it is: coercion. You dress it up as "respect for free will," but the reality is that it’s a threat of eternal punishment for failing to believe without evidence. If your God truly valued free will, He wouldn’t rely on fear and coercion to force compliance.

And then there’s the laughable notion that miracles wouldn’t convince me because I’d simply "revise my understanding of physics." That’s a projection of your own inability to grasp how science works. If an event occurred that genuinely violated the conservation laws or fundamental interactions—say, the spontaneous appearance of an electric charge—it would force scientists to reevaluate the laws of physics. That’s how we differentiate extraordinary phenomena from the mundane. Your dismissal of this as an impossibility shows a profound ignorance of the scientific method.

But let’s not miss the real issue here: your complete inability to provide any evidence for your claims. I’ve asked you repeatedly to present the evidence that you personally find so compelling, and all you’ve offered are tired anecdotes and vague platitudes. You can’t even explain how your God interacts with the physical world without contradicting yourself. Does He violate the laws of physics, or doesn’t He? Does He provide evidence, or doesn’t He? Your evasiveness on these points speaks volumes.

Lastly, your condescending tone about my supposed "demands" is rich coming from someone who insists that their beliefs must be taken seriously despite offering no tangible support for them. You accuse me of mocking God and daring Him to prove Himself, but the real issue is that you’ve constructed a theology where doubt is impossible because God is conveniently untestable. That’s not faith—it’s intellectual cowardice.

So let me be clear: I’m not "despising God" or "choosing a world without Him." I’m rejecting incoherent arguments and unsubstantiated claims. If your God exists and cares so deeply about my belief, He knows exactly what it would take to convince me. The fact that He hasn’t says far more about the limitations of your theology than it does about me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis, it's genuinely impressive how quickly you’ve descended into this tantrum. Is this your idea of a reasoned argument? Caps lock and insults? Bravo—you’ve managed to communicate nothing except your inability to engage with even the simplest points without throwing a fit.

It’s also impressive (sort of) how your posts follow a formula!

Tantrum, you say?

Keep your sense of humor, Mr Utter-Serious. I know you are saving the world and all but really …

You cannot respond to what I say — it is gibberish to you — because of a very real illiterate-ness.

I cannot help you there as I said.

Keep on with your project, Mike. Don’t let me get in your way.