Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

That's not true, of course. It's only a matter of what you'd accept as evidence.

But let's clear that up, just so everybody can see if I'm right about that: supposing there were a God, what evidence of His existence would you accept?

Immanuel, if the best you can offer is hearsay from the late Bronze Age...

This is unrelated to my question. Let's stick to the relevant.

You ask what evidence I’d accept. Simple: verifiable, repeatable, observable phenomena that unambiguously demonstrate the existence of a divine being. Something that doesn’t rely on subjective interpretations, emotional appeals, or leaps of logic. If your God exists and wants to be known, surely an omnipotent being could provide clear, undeniable evidence that transcends the hearsay and wishful thinking of ancient texts.

Great. What would that evidence look like: the stuff you would accept today. Give a very practical example of how God could convince you...

Immanuel, let’s flip this around for a second: What do you think your God can actually do that wouldn’t otherwise happen on its own, according to the laws of nature? If your God is constantly at work in the world, as you seem to imply, then surely you can identify a phenomenon or event that is so unmistakably divine, it couldn’t be attributed to natural processes or the known interactions of the universe.

Because here’s the thing—if you point to everyday occurrences like a sunrise, the birth of a child, or a fortuitous coincidence and call it "God," then you’re not really proving anything. You’re just slapping a label on what nature, physics, and biology already explain. So, what’s left? What’s this God doing that couldn’t happen without him? Let’s hear it.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, if the best you can offer is hearsay from the late Bronze Age...

This is unrelated to my question. Let's stick to the relevant.

You ask what evidence I’d accept. Simple: verifiable, repeatable, observable phenomena that unambiguously demonstrate the existence of a divine being. Something that doesn’t rely on subjective interpretations, emotional appeals, or leaps of logic. If your God exists and wants to be known, surely an omnipotent being could provide clear, undeniable evidence that transcends the hearsay and wishful thinking of ancient texts.

Great. What would that evidence look like: the stuff you would accept today. Give a very practical example of how God could convince you...

Immanuel, let’s flip this around for a second:

No, let's answer the question first, and then we can do that.

[BigMike]

This is unrelated to my question. Let's stick to the relevant.


Great. What would that evidence look like: the stuff you would accept today. Give a very practical example of how God could convince you...

Immanuel, let’s flip this around for a second:

No, let's answer the question first, and then we can do that.

Immanuel, why not skip the games and just present the evidence you personally found so convincing? If you’re so certain of your position, surely you have no issue sharing it directly. Let’s see what persuaded you.

[Belinda]

Jesus and other prophets explain and describe eternal goodness and truth as it affects morality.

Whenever somebody says something like this, I know for certain that they've been infected with Western secular liberal propaganda. They don't know what Jesus Christ actually said, relative to what other "prophets," as they call themselves, said.

For example, Jesus said "Love your enemies." Mohammed said, "Kill them." If both Jesus Christ and Mo are celebrated as "prophets," which one told us about "eternal goodness and truth"? They commanded the moral opposite in both attitude and action.

God or nature is not all -powerful as neither God nor nature has any intentions concerning future events; future events are influenced by natural laws and human endeavours.

That's Deism. And it's another contradiction. Because Jesus said that God has definite intentions for both us and for the future. So if a "prophet," a Deistic one, says God does not, how do we reconcile those two?

I am a deist who is aided by the teaching of Jesus and other sages .

There's your problem: if you're a Deist, and if you're led by these contrary "sages," then you cannot be led by Jesus Christ.

Your quotation from Augustine is more explicit than mine and I like your discussion of it.

I think you had the general idea right: I was just clarifying. It's an interesting point Augustine makes, and I've thought long about it. However, Augustine was not a prophet, so how seriously we have to take his claim is not certain. It's certainly worth thinking about.

'Propaganda@ is cynical indoctrination commonly for political purposes. In my youth when my character was being formed I was reared in a culture of kindly liberal Christians who would have had nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty and unkindness such as cynical indoctrination. Moreover I was a child during the war when the machinations of the Nazi propaganda machine was such common knowledge for all ages that we all, including children, enjoyed jokes about Lord HawHaw.


You are too arrogant! Who is and who is not a prophet is decided by history not Immanuel Can.

[henry quirk]

What do you think your God can actually do that wouldn’t otherwise happen on its own, according to the laws of nature?

He created you, a free will, a moral being. Without Him, you wouldn't be.

[seeds]

It’s about whether the scientific principles that underpin observable reality—namely, the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—hold up under scrutiny. If you believe they don’t, the burden is on you to identify the flaw.

May I politely suggest (with a touch of irreverent humor) that you fold your entire shtick 5 ways and tuck it up your asshole?

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

Oh brother,...that's rich coming from someone whose "...inability—or unwillingness—to grapple with..." the issues I raised in this post...

viewtopic.php?p=750641&sid=ee6d4a7605f4 ... 31#p750641

...has not been forgotten.

Alexis, your response is a perfect example of why this conversation is so infuriating for anyone who takes the future of humanity seriously.

Do you actually believe that if everyone adopted the nihilism implicit in determinism, then the Donald Trumps of the world, or the Vladimer Putins of the world, or the Kim Jong Uns of the world would suddenly be overcome by the sappy (and empty) sentiment of John Lennon's inane song "Imagine" and lose their lust for power over others?

Are you really that naive?

If anything, a general acceptance of the belief in determinism would justify the efforts of those who believe in the "survival of the fittest" (and the strongest)...

...and they would not be wrong.
_______

[accelafine]

What do you think your God can actually do that wouldn’t otherwise happen on its own, according to the laws of nature?

He created you, a free will, a moral being.

How?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, let’s flip this around for a second:

No, let's answer the question first, and then we can do that.

Immanuel, why not skip the games...

Games? Games? I'm just asking you what evidence you would accept. That's a perfectly simple question. Why not just answer it?

[Immanuel Can]

'Propaganda@ is cynical indoctrination commonly for political purposes.

It's simpler than that. It is being taught ideologically-driven falsehoods. It doesn't have to be political...there is such a thing as religious propaganda, as well. And it doesn't matter if the propagandist is cynical or sincere: what matters is the content.

In my youth when my character was being formed I was reared in a culture of kindly liberal Christians who would have had nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty and unkindness such as cynical indoctrination.

Okay, I'll believe you. But then, how did you decide that all prophets teach the same things, when in fact, it's painfully obvious they didn't? Who taught you to believe something so obviously false?

Who is and who is not a prophet is decided by history not Immanuel Can.

Certainly it's not me who decides it. And "history" has no opinions at all about it. All "history" can tell us is who got called a "prophet," not who was one.

A genuine prophet must be one who speaks the truth, as I'm sure you agree: otherwise, he'd be what we call a "false prophet". And as you can see, those who some call "prophets," like Jesus Christ and Mo, taught opposite things. So one of them is certainly not a genuine prophet...one must be a false prophet. Which one is it?

[Dubious]

What do you think your God can actually do that wouldn’t otherwise happen on its own, according to the laws of nature?

He created you, a free will, a moral being. Without Him, you wouldn't be.

Another gem coming from what turns out to be the biggest lunatic asylum on the planet.

[Dubious]

What do you think your God can actually do that wouldn’t otherwise happen on its own, according to the laws of nature?

He created you, a free will, a moral being.

How?

It's simple. God only had to say "Let there be" and there it was. There was no process involved, only god's command to instantly create what would have taken evolution - which god didn't create since he didn't need to - a billion years to process. You don't need evolution if a Let there be is all that's required. God, in function, is equivalent to instant chicken noodle soup.

[BigMike]

No, let's answer the question first, and then we can do that.

Immanuel, why not skip the games...

Games? Games? I'm just asking you what evidence you would accept. That's a perfectly simple question. Why not just answer it?

Sure, Immanuel, let’s get serious. If I thought you had even the faintest grasp of what conservation laws are, I’d say this: the appearance of an electric charge out of nowhere, violating the conservation of charge, would be enough to consider the possibility of a god. But let’s not kid ourselves—you’ve already demonstrated that you either don’t understand or deliberately ignore basic scientific principles.

So here’s a reality check for you: the burden isn’t on me to entertain your Bronze Age fantasies. If your God exists and has the power to do literally anything, let Him violate a fundamental interaction or conservation law in a clear, undeniable way. Until then, your rambling is nothing more than noise—distracting, irrelevant, and entirely unconvincing.

[Alexiev]

Immanuel, why not skip the games...

Games? Games? I'm just asking you what evidence you would accept. That's a perfectly simple question. Why not just answer it?

Sure, Immanuel, let’s get serious. If I thought you had even the faintest grasp of what conservation laws are, I’d say this: the appearance of an electric charge out of nowhere, violating the conservation of charge, would be enough to consider the possibility of a god. But let’s not kid ourselves—you’ve already demonstrated that you either don’t understand or deliberately ignore basic scientific principles.

So here’s a reality check for you: the burden isn’t on me to entertain your Bronze Age fantasies. If your God exists and has the power to do literally anything, let Him violate a fundamental interaction or conservation law in a clear, undeniable way. Until then, your rambling is nothing more than noise—distracting, irrelevant, and entirely unconvincing.

Your knowledge of religion is almost as bad as your ideas about what constitutes evidence, Mike. Do not tempt God. Why should He prove Himself to you?

Obviously, anything that happens does not violate natural law. The laws of nature are inferred from what happens; what happens precedes and creates the law, not the other way around.

As far as your silly claims that there is no evidence for God: would you accept turning water into wine? How about raising Lazurus from the dead? Did you know that when Acquinas place his scrolls refuting the Manichean heresy on the altar at the Cathedral of Paris dozens of witnesses say he rose 50 fet in the air and floated out of the church? Hmmm? Evidence?

Of course evidence does not constitute fact. Still, your claim that there is no evidence is ludicrous. And your notion that scientific laws control the universe (instead of the universe controlling scientific laws) is nonsensical.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, why not skip the games...

Games? Games? I'm just asking you what evidence you would accept. That's a perfectly simple question. Why not just answer it?

Sure, Immanuel, let’s get serious.

I'm already serious. Why are you fooling around?

Why won't you answer the very simple question, "What evidence would you accept?"

Is it because there's NO evidence you'd accept?

[BigMike]

Games? Games? I'm just asking you what evidence you would accept. That's a perfectly simple question. Why not just answer it?

Sure, Immanuel, let’s get serious.

I'm already serious. Why are you fooling around?

Why won't you answer the very simple question, "What evidence would you accept?"

Is it because there's NO evidence you'd accept?

Immanuel, what the hell is your problem? I’ve asked you—repeatedly—to present the evidence you personally found so convincing. Silence. 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. Nothing. Instead, you dodge, deflect, and throw the same tired question back at me as if that’s some sort of debate-winning move. It’s not.

If you had any evidence worth sharing, you’d have put it on the table by now. But you haven’t. Why? Because you don’t have any. Instead of addressing your own burden of proof, you project it onto everyone else and then cry foul when you’re called out. So let me be crystal clear: the problem here isn’t me refusing to answer your question. The problem is your refusal to engage honestly. Either put up some real evidence or admit that your beliefs are based on nothing but empty faith and unsubstantiated claims. Enough with the games.