Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

[Atla]

each person finds their own means of relationship with what that word — divinity — connotes.

Divinity? Oh divine Goddess, save this world from all those beings unassailed by feelings of embarrassment - and by similar humane emotions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Things of the following sort contradict the powerful force of a strangely determined mode of thought which assaults modes of understanding of far greater relevance than the mere ultra-rational:

… And surely it is not a vain dream that man shall come to find his joys only in acts of enlightenment and of mercy, and not in cruel pleasures, as he doth now, in gluttony, lust, pride, boasting and envious selfexaltation. I hold firmly that this is no dream but that the time is at hand... I believe that through Christ we shall accomplish this great work ...and all men will say 'The stone which the builders rejected is become the chief stone of the corner.' And of the mockers themselves we may ask, If this faith of ours be a dream, then how long is it to wait ere ye shall have finished your edifice, and have ordered everything justly by the intellect alone without Christ?... In truth they have a greater faculty for dreaming than we have. They think to order all wisely; but, having rejected Christ, they will end by drenching the world with blood. For blood crieth again for blood, and they that take the sword shall perish by the sword.

How wonderful I feel myself to be! That I can interject a Dostoevskian thought into the very nest of left-brained nut-jobs! Then watch them scamper, whinny and complain!

Do you all understand how baffling it is to me that my Glory is not recognized when, to me, it is as plain as the revealing dawn and

The Sun freed from its fears,
And with soft grateful tears
Ascends the sky.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am a Sun here! You are ectothermic reptiles!

[Alexiev]

Phyllo, you’re misunderstanding something basic—so let me make it clear.

I'm not "trying to talk about the supernatural" as if it has something legitimate to say. I'm dismantling it. I'm not attempting to understand it—I'm pointing out that it's incoherent, unverifiable, and logically self-defeating, and that pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

You said: “If something affects reality then it exists.”

Exactly. That’s the point. So when people claim a supernatural entity does affect reality—whether it’s through visions, voices, miracles, or mystical downloads of truth—then the burden of proof is on them to show how. What mechanism? What evidence? What causal process?

If they say, “Well, there is no mechanism, it can’t be observed, and logic doesn’t apply,” then sorry—that's a big red flag that what they’re talking about doesn’t exist. You don’t get to claim “it affects the world” and then run away from every follow-up question about what that actually means. That’s not deep, it’s just lazy.pty. Hollow.

As for your question—“Isn’t it a waste of time to keep asking when no answer comes?”

No. It’s not. Because every time I ask, and no answer comes, it proves the point again: this entire category of belief is emUnfalsifiable nonsense dressed up as insight. And sometimes the most effective way to reveal that isn’t by ignoring it, but by dragging it out into the light and showing everyone that there's nothing there.

So yeah, I’ll keep asking—not because I expect a good answer, but because the silence or the nonsense that follows is the answer. And it’s the most honest way to persuade anyone watching with an open mind.

You want to believe in mysteries beyond logic? Go for it. But don’t expect them to hold up under scrutiny, and don’t be surprised when someone points out that they collapse the moment you try to define them.

That’s not my problem. That’s the cost of trying to pass off fiction as philosophy.

This is naive, Mike. Obviously, "supernatural" events that occur are, in fact, not "super"natural at all. Instead, they are "natural" (i.e. real). If Jesus rose from the dead, that was a real and therefore "natural" occurrence. Of course there are supernatural CLAIMS that are merely false -- but that's a different matter altogether.

Second, there is nothing "illogical" about the supernatural. Indeed, fairy tales are supremely logical. "If you blow this horn, the walls of the castle will fall down." The character blows the horn, and the walls fall down. This may not conform to what you think is probable, but it is logically sound.

To respond to your earlier response to me, language (and other cultural things) emerge from our brains and transcend and shape our thoughts. Indeed, most physical anthropologists think the development of language shaped our brains (in addition to our brains shaping language). Such was the adaptive value of language that those areas of the brain designed to process it evolved over the generations. So our physical selves are created by an emergent and transcendent "thing".

Kant suggested that instead of assuming that our knowledge must conform to the reality of the world, the world (as we see it) conforms to our way of knowing. Of course we "know" largely through language, so this emergent and transcendent thing (perhaps) determines our reality. I suppose that's not what you mean by "determinism", though. YOur form of determinism is a very Modernistic one: the parts explain the whole. Post modernism has not offered good alternatives -- but its critiques of Modernism are cogent and telling. Perhaps physics does "determine" everything that happens. But we are not in the position to "know" that, because our ways of knowing are always suspect.

[Atla]

Kant suggested that instead of assuming that our knowledge must conform to the reality of the world, the world (as we see it) conforms to our way of knowing.

It's been said that someone could sit down and meditate for a million years, and he/she still wouldn't come up with the rules of quantum mechanics. (Because they are that alien and counter-intuitive to our way of knowing.)

[BigMike]

I'm not "trying to talk about the supernatural" as if it has something legitimate to say. I'm dismantling it. I'm not attempting to understand it—I'm pointing out that it's incoherent, unverifiable, and logically self-defeating, and that pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

It's like bringing a screwdriver to dismantle something, but it's not put together with screws.

Better to show that your structure, which does use screws, is an improvement.

You said: “If something affects reality then it exists.”

Exactly. That’s the point. So when people claim a supernatural entity does affect reality—whether it’s through visions, voices, miracles, or mystical downloads of truth—then the burden of proof is on them to show how. What mechanism? What evidence? What causal process?

If they say, “Well, there is no mechanism, it can’t be observed, and logic doesn’t apply,” then sorry—that's a big red flag that what they’re talking about doesn’t exist. You don’t get to claim “it affects the world” and then run away from every follow-up question about what that actually means. That’s not deep, it’s just lazy.

Lots of things exist which don't have an explanation or mechanism. The universe is an example.

Phyllo, that screwdriver metaphor would be cute if it made sense—but it doesn't. If you claim something is affecting reality, that is a “screw”—you’ve just declared interaction with the physical world. That means it’s fair game for scrutiny, explanation, and evidence. You can’t say, “This thing changes reality,” and then shout “wrong tool!” when someone asks how. That’s not a mismatch of tools—that’s a desperate dodge.

Now, your fallback move—“lots of things exist without explanation, like the universe”—is classic, but it misses a key distinction: the universe exists as a brute fact, yes. But we don’t go around making specific claims about the universe’s intentions, messages, or conscious interventions without backing them up. People who argue for the “supernatural,” on the other hand, do just that—they say something is out there that communicates, judges, heals, guides, creates meaning, answers prayers, etc.

And when you make those claims, you’ve left the realm of brute existence and stepped into the realm of causal claims. And causal claims require mechanisms. That’s not an opinion—that’s how logic and epistemology work.

If I say “gravity made that apple fall,” I’m not required to explain all the deep physics behind general relativity to say that. We have a well-supported, observable framework. But if I say “a divine force pushed the apple” and then refuse to explain how or why—or worse, say “you can’t understand it, it’s beyond logic”—then I’m just waving my hands in the air and hoping no one notices the emperor is naked.

So no—you don’t get to hide behind “well, the universe exists without explanation” to protect wildly specific, causally loaded claims about a supernatural entity.

Bottom line: If someone says something affects the world, they are implicitly saying there is a way it does that. If they then claim that the “how” is off-limits to reason, they’ve just made their own position self-destruct.

You don’t get to throw bricks into reality and then deny being asked who threw them or from where.

[BigMike]

Phyllo, you’re misunderstanding something basic—so let me make it clear.

I'm not "trying to talk about the supernatural" as if it has something legitimate to say. I'm dismantling it. I'm not attempting to understand it—I'm pointing out that it's incoherent, unverifiable, and logically self-defeating, and that pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

You said: “If something affects reality then it exists.”

Exactly. That’s the point. So when people claim a supernatural entity does affect reality—whether it’s through visions, voices, miracles, or mystical downloads of truth—then the burden of proof is on them to show how. What mechanism? What evidence? What causal process?

If they say, “Well, there is no mechanism, it can’t be observed, and logic doesn’t apply,” then sorry—that's a big red flag that what they’re talking about doesn’t exist. You don’t get to claim “it affects the world” and then run away from every follow-up question about what that actually means. That’s not deep, it’s just lazy.pty. Hollow.

As for your question—“Isn’t it a waste of time to keep asking when no answer comes?”

No. It’s not. Because every time I ask, and no answer comes, it proves the point again: this entire category of belief is emUnfalsifiable nonsense dressed up as insight. And sometimes the most effective way to reveal that isn’t by ignoring it, but by dragging it out into the light and showing everyone that there's nothing there.

So yeah, I’ll keep asking—not because I expect a good answer, but because the silence or the nonsense that follows is the answer. And it’s the most honest way to persuade anyone watching with an open mind.

You want to believe in mysteries beyond logic? Go for it. But don’t expect them to hold up under scrutiny, and don’t be surprised when someone points out that they collapse the moment you try to define them.

That’s not my problem. That’s the cost of trying to pass off fiction as philosophy.

This is naive, Mike. Obviously, "supernatural" events that occur are, in fact, not "super"natural at all. Instead, they are "natural" (i.e. real). If Jesus rose from the dead, that was a real and therefore "natural" occurrence. Of course there are supernatural CLAIMS that are merely false -- but that's a different matter altogether.

Second, there is nothing "illogical" about the supernatural. Indeed, fairy tales are supremely logical. "If you blow this horn, the walls of the castle will fall down." The character blows the horn, and the walls fall down. This may not conform to what you think is probable, but it is logically sound.

To respond to your earlier response to me, language (and other cultural things) emerge from our brains and transcend and shape our thoughts. Indeed, most physical anthropologists think the development of language shaped our brains (in addition to our brains shaping language). Such was the adaptive value of language that those areas of the brain designed to process it evolved over the generations. So our physical selves are created by an emergent and transcendent "thing".

Kant suggested that instead of assuming that our knowledge must conform to the reality of the world, the world (as we see it) conforms to our way of knowing. Of course we "know" largely through language, so this emergent and transcendent thing (perhaps) determines our reality. I suppose that's not what you mean by "determinism", though. YOur form of determinism is a very Modernistic one: the parts explain the whole. Post modernism has not offered good alternatives -- but its critiques of Modernism are cogent and telling. Perhaps physics does "determine" everything that happens. But we are not in the position to "know" that, because our ways of knowing are always suspect.

Alexiev, this is the kind of intellectual performance that looks deep if you squint hard enough through a fog machine and suspend all standards of clarity.

You start by saying that if Jesus rose from the dead, it would be “natural.” That’s not clever—it’s just desperate reframing. You’ve basically admitted that “supernatural” means nothing except “stuff that’s real when I want it to be.” So the moment someone calls you out, you just move the goalposts and rename the magic trick. Resurrection? Totally natural—if it happened. Big “if,” right? Because you don’t have to explain how, just imagine it. That’s your standard. Imagined logic in fictional tales.

And your defense of fairy tales? “If you blow this horn, the walls fall down”—yes, internally consistent in a made-up universe. You might as well say that Bugs Bunny walking through a painted tunnel is logically sound, too. Sure—it’s logically sound in Looney Tunes. But that doesn’t make it reality, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean supernatural claims should be immune to scrutiny just because they follow cartoon logic in their own mythos.

Then you pivot into your TED Talk voice to explain how language is both emergent and transcendent, like we’re supposed to be amazed by the mystery of it all. But you conveniently skip over the fact that everything you just said—about language shaping the brain and the brain shaping language—is exactly what determinism predicts. There’s no transcendence needed. It’s feedback loops in a physical system. You just dressed up recursion in philosophical perfume and called it holy.

And your closing move—dragging in Kant as if that somehow absolves you from making a coherent point—is the cherry on top. Kant was exploring the limits of perception, not giving you permission to believe in ghosts because epistemology is hard. You’re using uncertainty as a smokescreen to justify clinging to fantasy while pretending it’s philosophical sophistication.

Here’s the truth you keep trying to dance around: your entire argument is a tangle of slippery language, dodged definitions, and hollow appeals to ideas you half-digested from textbooks and mythology. There’s nothing transcendent here—just a refusal to accept that asking “what is it, how do we know, and how does it work?” is the bare minimum for any claim about reality.

This isn’t postmodernism. It’s post-accountability. And it’s not profound. It’s pathetic.

[phyllo]

If I say “gravity made that apple fall,” I’m not required to explain all the deep physics behind general relativity to say that. We have a well-supported, observable framework. But if I say “a divine force pushed the apple” and then refuse to explain how or why—or worse, say “you can’t understand it, it’s beyond logic”—then I’m just waving my hands in the air and hoping no one notices the emperor is naked.

Why do you get to say "gravity" without explanation but the other person can't say "divine force" without explanation?

Both of you saw the apple fall so that's not being disputed.


And "you can't understand" and "it's beyond logic" may be true for the "gravity" case.

Physics isn't "logical", it's a description of what was observed. There's nothing inherently logical about gravity.

[BigMike]

If I say “gravity made that apple fall,” I’m not required to explain all the deep physics behind general relativity to say that. We have a well-supported, observable framework. But if I say “a divine force pushed the apple” and then refuse to explain how or why—or worse, say “you can’t understand it, it’s beyond logic”—then I’m just waving my hands in the air and hoping no one notices the emperor is naked.

Why do you get to say "gravity" without explanation but the other person can't say "divine force" without explanation?

Both of you saw the apple fall so that's not being disputed.


And "you can't understand" and "it's beyond logic" may be true for the "gravity" case.

Physics isn't "logical", it's a description of what was observed. There's nothing inherently logical about gravity.

Phyllo, come on—this is just weak.

You're equating "gravity" with "divine force" like they're interchangeable placeholders, as if both are equally valid ways to describe the same event. But they're not even in the same ballpark. Gravity is a model—refined through centuries of observation, measurement, prediction, falsification, and successful application. We can describe how it behaves, we can calculate its effects, and we can send a damn spacecraft to land on a moving asteroid because of it.

“Divine force” is just a guess—a poetic shrug in the dark, with no predictive power, no mechanism, and no evidence. It's a label slapped on ignorance to make it feel meaningful. You don't get to pretend those are on equal footing just because they both involve an apple falling.

And your attempt to say "well, gravity isn't logical either" is a mess. Gravity isn't inherently logical in the philosophical sense—but science doesn’t claim to explain why the universe is the way it is, only how it behaves. The logic is in the structure of the model: we build frameworks that make consistent, testable predictions. That’s how we separate fact from fantasy. Logic is the filter, not the cause. If something defies logic, it can’t even enter the conversation—it’s just noise.

When someone says “gravity caused the apple to fall,” they’re invoking a framework that’s been tested millions of times, refined by equations, and falsifiable at every step. When someone says “a divine force pushed it,” they’re saying absolutely nothing beyond a personal feeling. And when they follow it up with “you can’t understand it,” they’re not adding mystery—they’re closing the door to inquiry.

So no—you don’t get to hold “divine force” in one hand and “gravity” in the other and pretend they’re just two flavors of the same intellectual ice cream. One has substance. The other is just smoke and incense.

[phyllo]

You're equating "gravity" with "divine force" like they're interchangeable placeholders, as if both are equally valid ways to describe the same event. But they're not even in the same ballpark. Gravity is a model—refined through centuries of observation, measurement, prediction, falsification, and successful application. We can describe how it behaves, we can calculate its effects, and we can send a damn spacecraft to land on a moving asteroid because of it.

“Divine force” is just a guess—a poetic shrug in the dark, with no predictive power, no mechanism, and no evidence. It's a label slapped on ignorance to make it feel meaningful. You don't get to pretend those are on equal footing just because they both involve an apple falling.

You said that you didn't have to "explain all the deep physics". So you're using "gravity" as a placeholder.

And your attempt to say "well, gravity isn't logical either" is a mess. Gravity isn't inherently logical in the philosophical sense—but science doesn’t claim to explain why the universe is the way it is, only how it behaves. The logic is in the structure of the model: we build frameworks that make consistent, testable predictions. That’s how we separate fact from fantasy. Logic is the filter, not the cause. If something defies logic, it can’t even enter the conversation—it’s just noise.

If you drill down into physics, you find that there is "no reason" as to why things are the way that they are.

The foundation is fundamentally beyond reason and logic.

One needs to recognize that. Then one can use physics in areas where it is useful and applicable.

[BigMike]

You're equating "gravity" with "divine force" like they're interchangeable placeholders, as if both are equally valid ways to describe the same event. But they're not even in the same ballpark. Gravity is a model—refined through centuries of observation, measurement, prediction, falsification, and successful application. We can describe how it behaves, we can calculate its effects, and we can send a damn spacecraft to land on a moving asteroid because of it.

“Divine force” is just a guess—a poetic shrug in the dark, with no predictive power, no mechanism, and no evidence. It's a label slapped on ignorance to make it feel meaningful. You don't get to pretend those are on equal footing just because they both involve an apple falling.

You said that you didn't have to "explain all the deep physics". So you're using "gravity" as a placeholder.

And your attempt to say "well, gravity isn't logical either" is a mess. Gravity isn't inherently logical in the philosophical sense—but science doesn’t claim to explain why the universe is the way it is, only how it behaves. The logic is in the structure of the model: we build frameworks that make consistent, testable predictions. That’s how we separate fact from fantasy. Logic is the filter, not the cause. If something defies logic, it can’t even enter the conversation—it’s just noise.

If you drill down into physics, you find that there is "no reason" as to why things are the way that they are.

The foundation is fundamentally beyond reason and logic.

One needs to recognize that. Then one can use physics in areas where it is useful and applicable.

Phyllo, stop. You’re not making a profound philosophical point—you’re flailing.

When I say I don’t need to “explain all the deep physics,” that’s not using gravity as a placeholder. It means we have an actual, working framework with demonstrable, predictive value. Gravity isn’t some vague poetic word I invoke to feel spiritual about falling fruit. It’s a mathematically modeled, empirically verified force. We don’t have to explain everything about it to recognize that it works, consistently, and across contexts. That’s not a placeholder—that’s a working tool.

Your “divine force” has none of that. No math. No predictive ability. No experiments. Just hand-waving and mysticism. You're using a fantasy to explain something you don't understand, and then trying to level the field by saying, “Well, science can’t explain everything either!” That’s not an argument—that’s an excuse.

And this idea that “if you drill down far enough, reason ends, so it’s all the same” is pure intellectual cowardice. You’re not drawing a boundary between knowledge and mystery—you’re erasing the entire line so you can pretend your baseless claims have equal standing.

Yes, science doesn’t answer why existence itself exists. No one claims it does. But that doesn’t give you a license to throw a god into the gap and call it insight. You’re mistaking not knowing everything for not knowing anything.

What you’re doing is the philosophical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “Well, you can’t explain the absolute origin of the cosmos, so I can believe whatever I want.” No. That’s not open-mindedness—that’s epistemological laziness.

So here’s your harsh truth: If your idea can’t be defined, tested, or reasoned about, then it doesn’t belong in a serious conversation. It’s not “beyond logic.” It’s beneath it.

[Alexiev]

Alexiev, this is the kind of intellectual performance that looks deep if you squint hard enough through a fog machine and suspend all standards of clarity.

You start by saying that if Jesus rose from the dead, it would be “natural.” That’s not clever—it’s just desperate reframing. You’ve basically admitted that “supernatural” means nothing except “stuff that’s real when I want it to be.” So the moment someone calls you out, you just move the goalposts and rename the magic trick. Resurrection? Totally natural—if it happened. Big “if,” right? Because you don’t have to explain how, just imagine it. That’s your standard. Imagined logic in fictional tales.

And your defense of fairy tales? “If you blow this horn, the walls fall down”—yes, internally consistent in a made-up universe. You might as well say that Bugs Bunny walking through a painted tunnel is logically sound, too. Sure—it’s logically sound in Looney Tunes. But that doesn’t make it reality, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean supernatural claims should be immune to scrutiny just because they follow cartoon logic in their own mythos.

Then you pivot into your TED Talk voice to explain how language is both emergent and transcendent, like we’re supposed to be amazed by the mystery of it all. But you conveniently skip over the fact that everything you just said—about language shaping the brain and the brain shaping language—is exactly what determinism predicts. There’s no transcendence needed. It’s feedback loops in a physical system. You just dressed up recursion in philosophical perfume and called it holy.

And your closing move—dragging in Kant as if that somehow absolves you from making a coherent point—is the cherry on top. Kant was exploring the limits of perception, not giving you permission to believe in ghosts because epistemology is hard. You’re using uncertainty as a smokescreen to justify clinging to fantasy while pretending it’s philosophical sophistication.

Here’s the truth you keep trying to dance around: your entire argument is a tangle of slippery language, dodged definitions, and hollow appeals to ideas you half-digested from textbooks and mythology. There’s nothing transcendent here—just a refusal to accept that asking “what is it, how do we know, and how does it work?” is the bare minimum for any claim about reality.

This isn’t postmodernism. It’s post-accountability. And it’s not profound. It’s pathetic.

Cut the crap, Mike. I'm not "dancing around" anything. You are. You misuse the language (writing "illogical" when you mean "not in conformance with my world view"); you repeat your defense of "determinism" (which I have never objected to, except to say it's irrelevant). Unfortunately for you, your "determinism" is not very good at predicting anything about human behavior. That's the problem with it: not that it is untrue, but that it is irrelevant. Who cares if our thoughts are "determined" by the physics of our brains? (I suppose some of the religious people on this forum care, but I don't.) We don't learn anything by accepting that premise. Instead, we learn about language by studying language; we learn about culture by studying culture; we learn about human behavior not by looking at brains, but by looking at behavior.

I'm sick of your insults and sick of your nonsense. It is you, not I, who pretends to be profound, but instead is trite, moronic, and full of yourself. You act as if "believing in" physics is some sort of revolutionary world view, when it is simply a normal, human world view that fails to be particularly enlightening in regard to those things we humans care most about. You repeat your idiotic nonsense about how other people are "dancing around" the issue, and then simply repeat yourself. It is you who dance around issues, claiming that the "supernatural" refers to things that don't happen (as opposed to me, who says that whatever happens is "natural"). You seem unable to comprehend simple, straightforward English.

Here's an example. You wrote:

I'm not "trying to talk about the supernatural" as if it has something legitimate to say. I'm dismantling it. I'm not attempting to understand it—I'm pointing out that it's incoherent, unverifiable, and logically self-defeating, and that pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

So, according to you, if something (like Jesus rising from the grave) is coherent and verifiable then it cannot be "supernatural". However, the supernatural is not "logically self-defeating" as I pointed out with my fairy tale example, which you were too stupid to understand. I give up. You are hopeless.

[phyllo]

Phyllo, stop. You’re not making a profound philosophical point—you’re flailing.

When I say I don’t need to “explain all the deep physics,” that’s not using gravity as a placeholder. It means we have an actual, working framework with demonstrable, predictive value. Gravity isn’t some vague poetic word I invoke to feel spiritual about falling fruit. It’s a mathematically modeled, empirically verified force. We don’t have to explain everything about it to recognize that it works, consistently, and across contexts. That’s not a placeholder—that’s a working tool.

Your “divine force” has none of that. No math. No predictive ability. No experiments. Just hand-waving and mysticism. You're using a fantasy to explain something you don't understand, and then trying to level the field by saying, “Well, science can’t explain everything either!” That’s not an argument—that’s an excuse.

And this idea that “if you drill down far enough, reason ends, so it’s all the same” is pure intellectual cowardice. You’re not drawing a boundary between knowledge and mystery—you’re erasing the entire line so you can pretend your baseless claims have equal standing.

Yes, science doesn’t answer why existence itself exists. No one claims it does. But that doesn’t give you a license to throw a god into the gap and call it insight. You’re mistaking not knowing everything for not knowing anything.

What you’re doing is the philosophical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “Well, you can’t explain the absolute origin of the cosmos, so I can believe whatever I want.” No. That’s not open-mindedness—that’s epistemological laziness.

So here’s your harsh truth: If your idea can’t be defined, tested, or reasoned about, then it doesn’t belong in a serious conversation. It’s not “beyond logic.” It’s beneath it.

I'm more open-minded than you.

I'm prepared to accept that one framework is not the solution for everything.

I'm prepared to use different thinking in different situations.

I'll stop because you can't seem to handle any challenges to your cherished idea.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm sick of your insults and sick of your nonsense. It is you, not I, who pretends to be profound, but instead is trite, moronic, and full of yourself. You act as if "believing in" physics is some sort of revolutionary world view, when it is simply a normal, human world view that fails to be particularly enlightening in regard to those things we humans care most about. You repeat your idiotic nonsense about how other people are "dancing around" the issue, and then simply repeat yourself. It is you who dance around issues, claiming that the "supernatural" refers to things that don't happen (as opposed to me, who says that whatever happens is "natural"). You seem unable to comprehend simple, straightforward English.

Alexiev, responding to the Spirit, said many relevant things. Alabado sea Alá, dueño de los destinos!

I would have said “That comment is gonna leave a mark!” but BigMike cannot be reached nor affected.

Underneath it all — this is my view — we would have to ask questions about the psychological dimension in Mike’s world. My view is that is where our real connection is: the psyche’s relationship with being, existence and something ineffable about our being here.