Flann 5 wrote: I don't have a vendetta against science.
Flann 5 wrote: On theism the first statement [A man walked on water, was born from a virgin and came back from the dead] is not absurd at all.
Your statements in this thread that I have quoted here do amount to a vendetta against science. You are rejecting the simplest explanations in favour of highly dubious assertions. That breaks Ockham’s Razor, the principle of parsimony, which is at the foundation of the scientific method of preference for elegance.Flann 5 wrote: God is not bound by his own laws
To claim that an entity exists that can break the laws of physics is only supported from highly dubious claims from theology, contradicted by all real evidence. The alleged evidence for a God who is not bound by physical laws is far better explained as delusion than reality.
Psychology and politics show why traditional claims about God are delusional. There are strong emotional drivers to say that supernatural beings exist, as indicated in the argument from Anselm that a real God is better than a fake one. Claims that God and Jesus are real and not fake receive comfort and support from the ability of such claims to sustain stable and productive social hierarchies.
This social function of religion is far better explained as a product of mythic faking than as the result of the existence of an actual interventionist personal miraculous God.
Once you apply this unscientific method to claim God can break his own laws and enable the miracles of Jesus, you throw all canons of reason and evidence out the window in favour of the traditional medieval fallacy of circular logic beloved by religion. Evidence should be a high value, so promoting fakery is unethical.
As with the abusive title of this thread, that religious fallacy of promoting fakery is designed to sow confusion and pursue a vendetta against science.
