Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Belinda]

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.

True, these are "ancient" texts. The ancient people they were written for were not acquainted with our 21st century idea of scientific enquiry. A 'miracle' to these prescientific people was an abrupt cultural change, a change in cultural paradigm.
Immanuel Can does not understand that interpretation of a transmitter's text should involve the receiver's own cultural prejudices and those of the transmitter.

I see cultural miracle in the act of Mariann Budde when she defied Trump and Co.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

Training?!? I run a very successful cult I’ll have you know. I’ve perfected my mind control techniques and everything.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, your response is a masterclass in contradiction and unsubstantiated assertions.

Let's see if that turns out to be right.

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?

Both. There is excellent evidence for the existence of God, and none whatsoever for Atheism. But those are not tricks perfomed to satisfy cynics; they are acts of God on behalf of His people.

Second, you bring up miracles from the Bible as if they hold any weight in this discussion.

One thing for sure: neither you nor I is the authority. God is.

Then there’s your "judgment day" threat

It isn't a "threat." Don't imagine that I think I have power...or even the desire...to make it so; and don't imagine you have power to ward it off with your cynicism, either. What will be will be: and it's the promise of God that it shall be. But you, though you cannot change what will be, you have power to say what side of that equation you come down on.

...the reality is that it’s a threat of eternal punishment for failing to believe without evidence.

The evidence has been provided, and preeminently so in Jesus Christ. What you will do with that fact will decide your disposition in eternity. There is no coercion. There are logical consequences to the choices one makes.

Free will is a real thing, remember? But "free" doesn't mean "consequence free."

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...

No. It's a historical pattern. And your cynicism suggests it would be a pattern you'd likely follow.

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.

For some people, maybe; for others, it would take them only so far as saying, "Well, it's just that our current understanding is incomplete; but when it's complete, we'll know."

That is, in fact, the exact manoeuver you perform in regard to Determinism, isn't it -- that we can't prove (or disprove) it now, but that when science is complete we'll see that every atom was predetermined? I'm pretty sure that's your position.

But let’s not miss the real issue here: your complete inability to provide any evidence for your claims.

I have, repeatedly: just not evidence you like. I've spoken of miracles, of revelation, of logic, and of Jesus Christ, God's preeminent demonstration of His reality and intentions. And your continued refusal of all that underlines the truth of my claim, that nothing is provable to somebody who refuses to see all evidence as evidence.

You accuse me of mocking God and daring Him to prove Himself...

I don't accuse you. I'm not your accuser. I merely point it out.

So let me be clear: I’m not "despising God" or "choosing a world without Him."

I would be glad to believe that.

I’m rejecting incoherent arguments and unsubstantiated claims.

Only "unsubstantiated" because you can't even imagine any terms upon which you'd be prepared to acknowledge any such "substantiation." Otherwise, you've been pointed to ample substantiation: you just don't happen to want to consider any of it.

If your God exists and cares so deeply about my belief, He knows exactly what it would take to convince me.

God cares about the things you don't believe in: your free will, your personhood, and your choices. And you would like Him to take them away from you, but He will not. He will even honour them in the end, by sealing the result you choose.

But as the word of God says, "The Lord is not slow about His promise [in context: of establishing righteous judgment] as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance."

[Immanuel Can]

I see cultural miracle in the act of Mariann Budde when she defied Trump and Co.

You're far too impressed with somebody who clearly has no power, no theology and a huge desire to grandstand in order to appear virtuous. She's all that's wrong with "Christendom" writ large.

[iambiguous]

There is excellent evidence for the existence of God.

Note to others:

Even though I can't get IC to note what he deems to be "excellent evidence for the existence of God", maybe other Christians here might be willing to explore the evidence IC claims does in fact exist here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/animate ... UbEALw_wcB

Then we can commense an exchange here -- viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- in order to examine and assess this evidence.

The fact is some will take pride in being atheists. But I'm not one of them. I want to be convinced that objective morality, immortality and salvation are within the reach of mere mortals.

Doesn't IC want to shift the focus to evidence able to convince some here to be born again?

Also, I'd appreciate it if IC or others would contact Craig and invite him to discuss the points I raised above.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have the proofs of the existence of God. But I’m not giving them away.

I am selling them!

If you cheapskates know what’s good for you you will relinquish you monkey grip on the funds and shell out!

[promethean75]

"Also, I'd appreciate it if IC or others would contact Craig and invite him to discuss the points I raised above."

If you guys get Craig in here, I'm gonna troll him with Sam Harris videos. I'm just letting you know in advance.

[Immanuel Can]

"Also, I'd appreciate it if IC or others would contact Craig and invite him to discuss the points I raised above."

If you guys get Craig in here, I'm gonna troll him with Sam Harris videos. I'm just letting you know in advance.

Sam Harris? Wow. The man in this world most adept at a talking with his eyes closed? That would be like taking a pop gun to a fire fight.

[Belinda]

I see cultural miracle in the act of Mariann Budde when she defied Trump and Co.

You're far too impressed with somebody who clearly has no power, no theology and a huge desire to grandstand in order to appear virtuous. She's all that's wrong with "Christendom" writ large.

Mariann Budde improves the public image of the Episcopalian Church. The Church must stand for human rights as did Jesus. The power of Mariann Budde is spiritual and moral.
She is a rallying point not only for Americans but also for those of us who seek a reasonable religion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mariann Budde improves the public image of the Episcopalian Church. The Church must stand for human rights as did Jesus. The power of Mariann Budde is spiritual and moral.

She is a rallying point not only for Americans but also for those of us who seek a reasonable religion.

If the Church stood for *human rights* it would long ago have taken a position against open advocacy of the policy that convinced millions and millions of illegals to cross the border and in the act commit a crime. You see? The actual *crime* falls on those who encouraged this.

True, this problem of encouraging open borders is actually a Republican platform (the Wall Street Journal business class) because they love to dilute the value of labor. So, how shall the core crime be assessed? Who will do it? Who has the authority?

Budde is an extremely superficial exponent of an extremely weak Christian position. It is devoid of a sound and rigorous base in either theology or ethics. But you know nothing about any of that because, as I recently said, you are *about as Christian as a plate of French toast*.

Actual Christian ethics has a great deal to offer when it comes to examining the current economic and political structures. It also has something to say about the preservations of borders, of established communities, and a great deal else.

Rounding them up, putting them on busses and planes, and returning them to their homelands could very easily be defended as a real act of *justice* totally in conformity with Christian-based ethical concepts.

You have a twisted sense of those ethics, and you are similarly screwed up as is Bishop Budd. (I mean this only in relation to the concepts I just mentioned.)

Don’t take this personally. You are one among millions and millions with a similar frame of mind.

[Immanuel Can]

I see cultural miracle in the act of Mariann Budde when she defied Trump and Co.

You're far too impressed with somebody who clearly has no power, no theology and a huge desire to grandstand in order to appear virtuous. She's all that's wrong with "Christendom" writ large.

Mariann Budde improves the public image of the Episcopalian Church.

Heh. Almost anything might improve that image.

The problem with the Episcopalian Church is that long ago it abandoned theology in favour of currying favour with whatever zeitgeist was available to it. There's a reasons its congregations, and others of the Leftist preference, are plunging like a stone: people don't go to church to be told that God doesn't matter and theology isn't useful, or to watch poser clergy virtue signal their wonderfulness to the world.

A few years, and that sad little organization will disappear...either dead from its own self-chosen irrelevance, or absorbed into some much bigger apostate religious body. And Budde is an exemplar of all that: a woman who waits for the cameras, and then seized the opportunity to self-present as champion of the "oppressed" -- ignoring the cartels, the rapists, the drug lords, the child traffickers and the murderers, and pretending -- before she could possibly even know -- that Trump is planning to deports refugee women and children, instead.

Did you buy her show? Did you think she didn't know about the cameras? Did you think she was standing up for refugees? Well, did you forget about the two and a half million illegals who paid more money than they had to, so that they could evade America's cameras and checks? You should ask yourself: why would somebody pay much more than they had to, and risk a very dangerous entry, simply in order to get in off the record, when they could have had shelter, food and a free flight to a sanctuary city instead, under Biden? What do you suppose they were doing?

I think you know. We've seen it in evey major city in which illegals have arrived. Fortunately, they're getting rounded up and shipped back now.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There is, of course, an alternative view that takes a harshly critical view of a developing Right-oriented Christian platform.

Sick in its own ways of course …

[Immanuel Can]

There is, of course, an alternative view that takes a harshly critical view of a developing Right-oriented Christian platform.

Sick in its own ways of course …

Well, it's religous, and it's nationalist...is it genuinely "Christian"? That needs an examination.

If "Christian" means "follower of Christ," how political was Jesus Christ? How much did He campaign for nationalism? What role did he take in the Sanhedrin or the Roman Council? How many mobs did He whip up to march, to chant and to demand rights? How interested was he in liasing with the Roman and Hebrew authorities? Which political faction did He sign on with? What political institutions did He establish, and what charter did He set out for them? Which office did He run for? What insurrection or terrorist campaign did He arrange? How many placards did He paint, or how much of a political war-chest did He establish? For all the hypocrisy, the tyranny and the injustices present at the time of His walk on earth, how many did He overthrow with political action?

He did none of this. None. So if political power or nationalism was on the agenda, He was remarkably ineffective in instituting anything. Why not take as Christian, then, His literal words: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

So what is "Christian Nationalism"? Does it make any more sense than "Democratic Socialism"?

No. Both are nonsense idioms that don't even rise to the level of an oxymoron. They're outright self-contradictions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If what you propose were what Christianity in a real, historical sense proposed, then you as Christianity’s advocate would retreat away from all opinions on contemporary issues. You do not. And you are deeply involved in political and social concerns.

You are involved in a strange, rather late, bastardized version of Christianity.

I have two levels of interest: One, real European Christianity in its authentic Catholic form, and especially Catholic social doctrine. It is deeply concerned about this-world human social, political and economic issues — as well as the ultimate state of man’s soul.

The other level transcends any religious specificity. Any “picture”. Any symbolism. It requires the application of genuine intelligence to see through the form to the content.

What the Trumpist Christian Nationalists are up to, well, all of this requires careful conversation. How “right” or how “wrong” they are demands a careful examination.

The Hyperborean Apollo does this.

Sadly, you cannot nor can any one of the mindless barnyard fowl scratching away in the wastelands of this Forum.

[Immanuel Can]

If what you propose were what Christianity in a real, historical sense proposed, then you as Christianity’s advocate would retreat away from all opinions on contemporary issues. You do not. And you are deeply involved in political and social concerns.

I didn't say Christ had no opinions about the Sanhedrin (whom He called "hypocrites" and "white tombs") or the Roman authority (whom he called an "old fox"). I said only that He did not make the mistake of thinking that political machinations would bring about the kingdom. And he taught His followers not to seek out political means to solve mankind's problems, which in essence are spiritual problems.

You are involved in a strange, rather late, bastardized version of Christianity.

Actually, it's the original form of Christianity.

I have two levels of interest: One, real European Christianity in its authentic Catholic form, and especially Catholic social doctrine.

Well, the Catholic Church doesn't even get off the ground until Milvian Bridge, in the fourth century. And as for their social doctrine, if it includes employing politics and secular power in order to achieve anything, but especially spiritual ends, then they are evidently in conflict with Christ, who told them that His kingdom is "not of this world," and eschewed all political machinations Himself.

So which one is acting as "Christian"? Which one looks like what Christ did and taught?