Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexiev]

[
So I’ll say it one more time: deal with the reality of the four fundamental interactions and the conservation laws that govern the universe, or admit that your argument is nothing but the frightened ramblings of someone terrified to confront the truth. Choose—if your "free will" allows it.

You've been told many times but fail to understand:

The conservation laws don't govern the universe: they describe the universe. To claim otherwise is to have a deistic, cosmic clockmaker world view.

Alexiev, your comment is nothing but a transparent attempt to dodge the actual challenge. Describing the universe and governing the universe aren’t mutually exclusive. The conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force—are the frameworks within which everything observable happens. They describe the universe precisely because they govern it. Without them, there’s no coherent model of reality, no explanation for cause and effect, and certainly no basis for your pseudo-philosophical nonsense.

But let’s not pretend this is about semantics. You’re not interested in engaging with the science because it obliterates your position. You’re clinging to your flimsy rhetoric like a drowning man clutching at straws because you’re terrified to confront the truth: your argument is baseless. If you think the conservation laws and fundamental interactions don’t shape every process in the universe, name a single physical event that occurs outside their domain. Go ahead. Point to one shred of evidence.

Your weak jab about a "deistic, cosmic clockmaker worldview" is laughable. Believing that the universe operates under consistent physical principles isn’t deism—it’s reality. You’re the one projecting magical thinking, desperately trying to pretend that something as absurd as "uncaused causes" can fit into a universe governed by causality.

So, once again: deal with the reality of the four fundamental interactions and the conservation laws, or admit that your argument is nothing but frightened rambling, a crutch for someone too scared to face the deterministic truth. If you want to keep dodging, fine, but don’t expect anyone here to take your nonsense seriously.

Now you are acting like an asshole, Mike. The law of gravity is a human construct; apples fell before there was a law of gravity (unless the law was decreed by God).

Perhaps I am "frightened". Your rude, obnoxious stupidity is enough to make anyone fear for the future of humanity.

Nor am I dodging anything. Instead, although you admit that science is judged by its utility, you insist on selling the notion that your worldview is somehow "useful" without a scintella of evidence.

The reality: it is irrelevant whether the universe is deterministic, because it makes no difference to us or our behavior. That is the "truth" you seem to fear, coward that you are. Perhaps you should avoid accusing others of your own obvious faults.

[BigMike]

You've been told many times but fail to understand:

The conservation laws don't govern the universe: they describe the universe. To claim otherwise is to have a deistic, cosmic clockmaker world view.

Alexiev, your comment is nothing but a transparent attempt to dodge the actual challenge. Describing the universe and governing the universe aren’t mutually exclusive. The conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force—are the frameworks within which everything observable happens. They describe the universe precisely because they govern it. Without them, there’s no coherent model of reality, no explanation for cause and effect, and certainly no basis for your pseudo-philosophical nonsense.

But let’s not pretend this is about semantics. You’re not interested in engaging with the science because it obliterates your position. You’re clinging to your flimsy rhetoric like a drowning man clutching at straws because you’re terrified to confront the truth: your argument is baseless. If you think the conservation laws and fundamental interactions don’t shape every process in the universe, name a single physical event that occurs outside their domain. Go ahead. Point to one shred of evidence.

Your weak jab about a "deistic, cosmic clockmaker worldview" is laughable. Believing that the universe operates under consistent physical principles isn’t deism—it’s reality. You’re the one projecting magical thinking, desperately trying to pretend that something as absurd as "uncaused causes" can fit into a universe governed by causality.

So, once again: deal with the reality of the four fundamental interactions and the conservation laws, or admit that your argument is nothing but frightened rambling, a crutch for someone too scared to face the deterministic truth. If you want to keep dodging, fine, but don’t expect anyone here to take your nonsense seriously.

Now you are acting like an asshole, Mike. The law of gravity is a human construct; apples fell before there was a law of gravity (unless the law was decreed by God).

Perhaps I am "frightened". Your rude, obnoxious stupidity is enough to make anyone fear for the future of humanity.

Nor am I dodging anything. Instead, although you admit that science is judged by its utility, you insist on selling the notion that your worldview is somehow "useful" without a scintella of evidence.

The reality: it is irrelevant whether the universe is deterministic, because it makes no difference to us or our behavior. That is the "truth" you seem to fear, coward that you are. Perhaps you should avoid accusing others of your own obvious faults.

Alexiev, your flailing attempts to save face here are as transparent as they are laughable. Calling me rude doesn't change the fact that your argument is intellectually bankrupt. You can cry about tone all you want, but until you address the substance, you’re just dodging again—exactly what I predicted.

Your apple analogy is painfully misguided. Yes, apples fell before Newton formulated the law of gravity. The point isn’t when we described it—the point is that the law itself reflects an observable, governing reality that applies universally. You seem to think that because humans identified it, it must somehow be arbitrary or irrelevant. That’s absurd. The universe doesn’t care whether you understand gravity; it operates all the same. If you think gravity isn’t a governing force, try floating off into space. Spoiler alert: you won’t.

And as for your claim that determinism is "irrelevant" because it "makes no difference to us or our behavior"? That’s not just wrong; it’s laughable. Determinism fundamentally informs our understanding of responsibility, causality, and systems of justice. If you’re too blinkered to see how recognizing the deterministic nature of behavior could reshape societal systems, reduce needless suffering, and eliminate punitive attitudes based on outdated notions of free will, that’s on you.

Finally, the irony of you calling me a coward while refusing to engage with the actual challenge I presented is beyond rich. I asked you to identify a single physical event outside the domain of the four fundamental interactions and the conservation laws. You didn’t. Why? Because you can’t. Instead, you’re desperately flinging personal insults in a sad attempt to distract from the glaring weakness of your position.

So, Alexiev, grow up and deal with the argument. If determinism is irrelevant, prove it. If the four fundamental interactions don’t govern the universe, show me. If you can’t, just admit that you’re out of your depth and move on. Otherwise, you’re just proving my point: empty rhetoric, no substance.

[Alexiev]

Point out one way in which determinism has improved or reshaped societal systems and I will retract my claim that you are a moron. (We'll disallow battle plans based on astrology or augaries based on the flight of birds or entrails of chickens. That's luck, not determinism.)

Until then, the claim stands.

The law of gravity has been revised several times since we humans invented it. The movements of objects determine the law; the law does not determine the movement. Since the law changes as our measurements become more accurate, this is obvious.

[BigMike]

Point out one way in which determinism has improved or reshaped societal systems and I will retract my claim that you are a moron. (We'll disallow battle plans based on astrology or augaries based on the flight of birds or entrails of chickens. That's luck, not determinism.)

Until then, the claim stands.

The law of gravity has been revised several times since we humans invented it. The movements of objects determine the law; the law does not determine the movement. Since the law changes as our measurements become more accurate, this is obvious.

Alexiev, your ignorance is staggering. If you think determinism hasn’t improved or reshaped societal systems, you’re not just uninformed—you’re willfully blind.

Let’s start with medicine. Understanding the deterministic causes of illnesses—be they bacterial infections, genetic disorders, or environmental factors—has led directly to the development of targeted therapies. Antibiotics weren’t discovered by waving chicken entrails around; they came from studying the causal relationships between microorganisms and disease. Cancer treatments? Rooted in understanding the genetic and molecular causes of tumor growth. Vaccines? Deterministic knowledge of how viruses function and spread. Do you think these advancements happened by accident or sheer guesswork? Is this news to you?

Now let’s talk about technology. Understanding the deterministic nature of electrical sparks and currents has revolutionized human life. From harnessing electricity to power homes, to developing the internet, to enabling lifesaving medical devices, all of this stems from studying the deterministic principles of electromagnetism. None of this was achieved by invoking "uncaused causes" or magical thinking.

The list goes on: agriculture, engineering, climate science—all of these fields rely on deterministic models to improve human life and shape societal systems. The deterministic approach has saved billions of lives, increased quality of life across the globe, and continues to be the foundation of every technological and scientific breakthrough.

As for your laughable comment about gravity: yes, our descriptions of gravity have evolved. That’s how science works—it refines its models as we gather better data. But the underlying phenomenon hasn’t changed. Objects still fall toward Earth, planets still orbit stars, and gravity still governs the large-scale structure of the universe. Descriptions aren’t prescriptive—they’re explanatory frameworks for what’s consistently observed. Confusing this for some kind of cosmic subjectivity only reveals your intellectual laziness.

So, Alexiev, I’ve laid out multiple ways determinism has reshaped society for the better. Unless you’re living under a rock (and judging by your comment, you might be), you’ve benefited from it, too. The only question left is: will you retract your ridiculous claim, or double down on the ignorance?

So, let me repeat: Grow some balls and deal with my argument. If determinism is irrelevant, prove it. If the four fundamental interactions don’t govern the universe, show me. If you can’t, just admit that you’re out of your depth and move on. Otherwise, you’re just proving my point: empty rhetoric, no substance.

[Immanuel Can]

The truth content of a metaphor is determined by him who interprets it.

No, the truth is determined by reality; and the accurate interpretation, defined by the one who created the statement. What the recipient would like to believe is just about the least important thing on earth. It will not alter reality, nor the meaning of the speaker.

If truth is determined by reality, which it is, then your plenary biblical beliefs are in deep doo-doo.

You'll find out if you're wrong. If you were right, you'd never know. So we'll see.

[accelafine]

No, the truth is determined by reality; and the accurate interpretation, defined by the one who created the statement. What the recipient would like to believe is just about the least important thing on earth. It will not alter reality, nor the meaning of the speaker.

If truth is determined by reality, which it is, then your plenary biblical beliefs are in deep doo-doo.

You'll find out if you're wrong. If you were right, you'd never know. So we'll see.

If you're wrong you will never know

[Immanuel Can]

If truth is determined by reality, which it is, then your plenary biblical beliefs are in deep doo-doo.

You'll find out if you're wrong. If you were right, you'd never know. So we'll see.

If you're wrong you will never know

Think about that. You're saying it, but you're not understanding the consequence of it if you're still laughing.

[accelafine]

You'll find out if you're wrong. If you were right, you'd never know. So we'll see.

If you're wrong you will never know

Think about that. You're saying it, but you're not understanding the consequence of it if you're still laughing.

I am well aware of what the 'consequence' is according to catholicism. I can't make myself believe what you believe, any more than you could make yourself not believe in it. It's just white noise to me. I don't have your catholic fear and dread

[Immanuel Can]

If you're wrong you will never know

Think about that. You're saying it, but you're not understanding the consequence of it if you're still laughing.

I am well aware of what the 'consequence' is according to catholicism.

Well, Catholicism has very odd ideas about what the future holds, and their ideas are quite different from anything the Bible or Jesus Christ Himself ever taught. You'd be best simply to go with what Jesus said, a part of which is what I quoted to Dubious. But if you want to excoriate the Catholics, I guess you can be my guest.

[accelafine]

Think about that. You're saying it, but you're not understanding the consequence of it if you're still laughing.

I am well aware of what the 'consequence' is according to catholicism.

Well, Catholicism has very odd ideas about what the future holds, and their ideas are quite different from anything the Bible or Jesus Christ Himself ever taught. You'd be best simply to go with what Jesus said, a part of which is what I quoted to Dubious. But if you want to excoriate the Catholics, I guess you can be my guest.

It's all hogwash to me. I'm sure catholics believe they are following jebus kriste as much as you do. Catholicism is the oldest kristian religion so in that sense it's a lot closer to jebus than whatever you follow is.

[Dubious]

No, the truth is determined by reality; and the accurate interpretation, defined by the one who created the statement. What the recipient would like to believe is just about the least important thing on earth. It will not alter reality, nor the meaning of the speaker.

If truth is determined by reality, which it is, then your plenary biblical beliefs are in deep doo-doo.

You'll find out if you're wrong. If you were right, you'd never know. So we'll see.

I could possibly be wrong if Adam & Eve were a true story. If simply a story and nothing more, what would have been the point of Christ's sacrifice on the cross since the sin drama started with them based on their being free will agents. Without that necessary ingredient, the purpose of Christ's crucifixion would have been annulled; we would happily have kept on sinning - that part never ceased - without any Original Sin incipience having started the process.

Do you believe that there existed a Garden of Eden and that Adam & Eve, the latter being created whole out of one of Adam's ribs, were its first inhabitants? Care to account for the disharmony between what is merely a story and the almost certain historical event of Christ's crucifixion, since there is nothing illogical or impossible in its occurrence.

[Immanuel Can]

I am well aware of what the 'consequence' is according to catholicism.

Well, Catholicism has very odd ideas about what the future holds, and their ideas are quite different from anything the Bible or Jesus Christ Himself ever taught. You'd be best simply to go with what Jesus said, a part of which is what I quoted to Dubious. But if you want to excoriate the Catholics, I guess you can be my guest.

It's all hogwash to me.

That's fine. You'll find out.

[accelafine]

Well, Catholicism has very odd ideas about what the future holds, and their ideas are quite different from anything the Bible or Jesus Christ Himself ever taught. You'd be best simply to go with what Jesus said, a part of which is what I quoted to Dubious. But if you want to excoriate the Catholics, I guess you can be my guest.

It's all hogwash to me.

That's fine. You'll find out.

So will you

[Immanuel Can]

If truth is determined by reality, which it is, then your plenary biblical beliefs are in deep doo-doo.

You'll find out if you're wrong. If you were right, you'd never know. So we'll see.

Care to account for the disharmony between what is merely a story and the almost certain historical event of Christ's crucifixion?

I can't find the rationale for the question. Sorry. I can't help you with that.

[Dubious]

You'll find out if you're wrong. If you were right, you'd never know. So we'll see.

Care to account for the disharmony between what is merely a story and the almost certain historical event of Christ's crucifixion?

I can't find the rationale for the question. Sorry. I can't help you with that.

That's because there is no rationale to the silly story you so fervently believe in. Applying any kind of rationality to a story that makes no sense on any level, from first to last, is impossible. So I agree with you, there is no rationale available or conceivable regarding the question in question!