Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Skepdick]

Conservation laws apply to physical quantities—energy, momentum, charge—not to abstract concepts like value, knowledge, progress, or well-being. You’re treating social, economic, and intellectual development as if they’re bound by the same rigid constraints as closed physical systems, which is a fundamental category error.

Ahahahahahahaha.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So social systems are not bound by the rigid constraints of closed physical systems?
Social systems are not bound by the law of physics?

Big Dumb Mike. Now is a good time to pause and reflect on the very question you asked in the OP.

[BigMike]

Conservation laws apply to physical quantities—energy, momentum, charge—not to abstract concepts like value, knowledge, progress, or well-being. You’re treating social, economic, and intellectual development as if they’re bound by the same rigid constraints as closed physical systems, which is a fundamental category error.

Ahahahahahahaha.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So social systems are not bound by the rigid constraints of closed physical systems?
Social systems are not bound by the law of physics?

Big Dumb Mike. Now is a good time to pause and reflect on the very question you asked in the OP.

How old are you? Because this level of juvenile, performative laughter doesn’t exactly scream intellectual maturity. If you have an actual argument, make it. If you’re just going to act like an internet troll with an ego problem, at least try for some originality.

[Skepdick]

Conservation laws apply to physical quantities—energy, momentum, charge—not to abstract concepts like value, knowledge, progress, or well-being. You’re treating social, economic, and intellectual development as if they’re bound by the same rigid constraints as closed physical systems, which is a fundamental category error.

Ahahahahahahaha.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So social systems are not bound by the rigid constraints of closed physical systems?
Social systems are not bound by the law of physics?

Big Dumb Mike. Now is a good time to pause and reflect on the very question you asked in the OP.

How old are you? Because this level of juvenile, performative laughter doesn’t exactly scream intellectual maturity. If you have an actual argument, make it. If you’re just going to act like an internet troll with an ego problem, at least try for some originality.

I am old enough to know that arguing with idiots is a zero-sum game. As a nett-benefit to society I much prefer to make examples of them.

Science is demonstrative.

It's not very intellectually mature; or honest to double down on the logical problems in your philosophy, instead of confronting them. Frankly, that's exactly how egotistical trolls engage in philosophy.

It's people like you who make me want to advocate for kicking people in the groin as a valid philosophical response.It certainly works better than reason on people with physicalist tendencies.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The Art of Persuasion: In Defense of "Aha Haha Ha AhaHa!"

In the realm of intellectual discourse, there exist various techniques to persuade and convince others of one's argument. However, amidst the sea of logical fallacies and rhetorical devices, one method stands tall: "aha haha ha ahaha!" This oft-maligned yet ingenious tactic has been unfairly maligned by critics. It's time to recognize its genius.

Firstly, "aha haha ha ahaha!" is an exemplary demonstration of emotional intelligence. By bursting into a fit of laughter, one showcases their ability to connect with the emotional resonance of an argument. It's a clever way to say, "This debate was won before it began; this is simply a mop-up operation".

Moreover, this technique expertly employs the element of ironic surprise. When confronted with a well-crafted "aha haha ha ahaha!", opponents are caught off guard, their counterarguments left stumbling in the dust. Often, they bust out in tears or storm off. Some have been known to put their dastardly opponents on ignore. It's a masterful display of psychological manipulation, leaving foes bewildered and demoralized.

Another significant advantage of "aha haha ha ahaha!" lies in its versatility. This phrase can be applied to any argument, regardless of topic or context. Whether debating the finer points of philosophy or arguing over whose turn it is to do the dishes, "aha haha ha ahaha!" is the ultimate trump card.

Of course, naysayers will claim that "aha haha ha ahaha!" is nothing more than a childish outburst, devoid of intellectual merit. But we mustn't be fooled by such pedestrian thinking. The true brilliance of this technique lies in its ability to transcend the mundane boundaries of logic and reason.

In conclusion, "aha haha ha ahaha!" is a legitimate and powerful tool in the art of persuasion. Its unique blend of emotional intelligence, surprise, and versatility makes it an indispensable asset in any debate or argument. So the next time you find yourself in a heated discussion, don't be afraid to unleash the mighty "aha haha ha ahaha!" – your opponents will be left looking far too serious and lacking even a smidgin of humor.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Conservation laws apply to physical quantities—energy, momentum, charge—not to abstract concepts like value, knowledge, progress, or well-being. You’re treating social, economic, and intellectual development as if they’re bound by the same rigid constraints as closed physical systems, which is a fundamental category error.

Master, please talk about what rules or “laws” apply to these non-physical things such as concepts and abstractions.

If so much of what is human involves these products of man’s psyche (I doubt you’d ever resort to that word so let’s say his mind or intellect) and these are non-quantifiable and — potentially at least (?) — operating outside of the physical domain (or seeming to have an existence outside of that domain) — how could any of that be measured, or the rules that determine it be translated into mathematical terms?

What is this ‘category’ then?

[henry quirk]

Conservation laws apply to physical quantities—energy, momentum, charge—not to abstract concepts like value, knowledge, progress, or well-being. You’re treating social, economic, and intellectual development as if they’re bound by the same rigid constraints as closed physical systems, which is a fundamental category error.

Looks like Mike is still tryin' to eat his cake and have it too.

If this...

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.

...is true, then abstract concepts like value, knowledge, progress, and well-being, and social, economic, and intellectual development, are bound by the same rigid constraints as closed physical systems becuz abstract concepts like value, knowledge, progress, and well-being, and social, economic, and intellectual development are nuthin' but aspects or results or outputs of conservations laws in a closed physical system.

So: no, there's no category error.

[BigMike]

It's genuinely sad how people like Skepdick and Alexis Jacobi can take what starts as a rational discussion and drag it into juvenile nonsense the moment they have no real argument left. Instead of engaging with facts, logic, or evidence, they resort to performative mockery (aha haha ha!) and smug self-indulgence, completely derailing any meaningful discourse.

This is the death of serious debate—not because difficult questions can't be addressed, but because some people would rather act like clowns than admit they were wrong. It's exhausting. It's pathetic. And it's exactly why rational conversations so often go nowhere.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's genuinely sad how people like Skepdick and Alexis Jacobi can take what starts as a rational discussion and drag it into juvenile nonsense the moment they have no real argument left.

Though I am not altogether up on the details of physics-based discussions, I can say quite honestly that there is no part of your irrational assertions, the nut-level propositions that you have invested in, that remain unintelligible to me.

The real issue here is that you declare that you are grounded in ‘reason’ and also in ‘truth’ and yet, upon examination, there are obvious holes in your theories and the ideology you construct from them.

The counter-arguments have all been presented and your issue is that you disallow them. I do not “blame” you for your intransigence — that intransigence (as I have expressed) looks like a mood empowered by enthusiastic (ie religious-like) conviction.

This has all been really really helpful to me and I can only thank you for being exactly what you are.

completely derailing any meaningful discourse.

Not so. If you are talking about me all my parodies have been spot-on relational to the topics.

I am actually a “payaso profesional” and I hold a legitimate (Southern Cone authorized) Clown Card (Cédula de Payasadas) which is valid through August of 2026

For Heaven’s sake man, laugh a little!

[henry quirk]

I can say quite honestly that there is no part of your irrational assertions, the nut-level propositions that you have invested in, that remain unintelligible to me.

The only person in this conversation who doesn't grasp the ramifications and consequences of Mike's determinism is Mike.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Curiously, in an ultimate sense, we are talking about castles made of sand. The idea that proposes to us that our view of things is an artificial construct.

Not an easy conversation to carry through on …

[Skepdick]

This is the death of serious debate—not because difficult questions can't be addressed, but because some people would rather act like clowns than admit they were wrong.

If the total lack of self-awareness wasn't so sad this would be hilarious...

[Immanuel Can]

I can say quite honestly that there is no part of your irrational assertions, the nut-level propositions that you have invested in, that remain unintelligible to me.

The only person in this conversation who doesn't grasp the ramifications and consequences of Mike's determinism is Mike.

Yes, it seems so. He can't see the performative contradiction between his insistence on both fatalistic Determinism and his idea that Determinism somehow will lead to "better" human outcomes, and his insistence that argumentation is a real thing and should convince people to change their minds.

In both cases, he's asking for things Determinism says simply CANNOT happen. There can be no "better" or "worse" social outcome, since there is only (by Determinism) ONE outcome possible...and there is no possibility of the "changing" of a "mind," because the state of a mind is also fated to be one thing, which is whatever it is, and there is no genuine "mind" a person can change anyway, according to Materialist Determinism.

He doesn't understand how often he contradicts himself.

[henry quirk]

He doesn't understand how often he contradicts himself.

That's how it seems, which is mind bogglin'. Of course, as I say, I don't believe he really believes any of this garbage. He may wanna be a meat machine but he knows he's not. So, all the advocacy for determinism is really a shine on the forum.

[Immanuel Can]

He doesn't understand how often he contradicts himself.

That's how it seems, which is mind bogglin'. Of course, as I say, I don't believe he really believes any of this garbage. He may wanna be a meat machine but he knows he's not. So, all the advocacy for determinism is really a shine on the forum.

Very likely.

However, to the good, at least it's apparent there are plenty of good criticisms of Determinism here, and he's made them all come out of the woodwork. So maybe people other than Mike are getting smarter, even if he isn't.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's how it seems, which is mind bogglin'. Of course, as I say, I don't believe he really believes any of this garbage. He may wanna be a meat machine but he knows he's not. So, all the advocacy for determinism is really a shine on the forum.

It has likely been clear that this is why I refer to “psychological” analysis. Not in the sense of asserting someone is being psychologically unbalanced, but that our perception (all of our perceptions) and understanding of the world is strongly influenced by internal, psychological factors.

How can this be talked about fairly is the question.