Matthew Le God

Science does not make infallible proclamations. If new evidence comes to light, that changes views. Religions claim an infallible God. It is not open to change in light of new evidence. It is a deeply flawed system to get to the truth.

Bullshit. I discussed faith in its Biblical definition in this thread.

Asking for a definition of wishy washy extremely vague terms is not nonsense.

1) Einstein saw "God" as a metaphor for the laws of nature and the mysterious order of the universe — not as a personal deity. "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." — Letter to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, 1929 (Spinoza's God is essentially the universe and its laws — impersonal and not anthropomorphic.) "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesse, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." — From a 1954 letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind 2) Your 'all evidence' before the Wright Brothers flight that it was impossible claim is nonsense. a) Bernoulli’s principle and aerodynamic studies showed that wings could generate lift. b) Otto Lilienthal and others proved that controlled, human-carrying flight was possible without engines. c) Lighter, more powerful internal combustion engines made powered flight physically feasible.

First you'd need to clarify 'in life' and 'scientific base'. Still wishy washy and vague. What 'in life' does not have a 'scientific base'?

I asked what 'beyond science' means. Please answer.

He has clearly had enough of the Wednesday ownership...

No, 'beyond science' is wishy washy vague nonsense. It requires clarification.

We already established you can't work out %, now you are admitting you can't count! You are having a shocker Turkish!

"Beyond science" What does that mean? Very vague and wishy washy.

You can base things on previous actions as evidence.

What is his explanation? He isn't going to be using science to make leap to God, so him being a scientist is irrelevant.

It is a fallacy. The number of people that believe something has no impact on the liklihood of truth. Why would you not want to be logical and use evidence? Not doing so is by definition irrational.

Can you give an example of how not believing in something fictional has led to harmful conflicts and tension?

If people claimed Harry Potter was born on 1st July but the evidence in the book showed he was born in November it is still evidence even though he is a fictional character.

Because beliefs impact actions and actions impact other people. If beliefs are based on flawed thinking it can be harmful to society.

Agumentum ad populum fallacy (again)

Lots of evidence in the Bible Jesus was not born in late December. Events in the story do not match a winter birth. Saturnalia was a Roman pagan festival held December 17–23, full of feasting, gift-giving, and celebration. Sol Invictus (The Unconquered Sun) was celebrated on December 25—the date of the winter solstice in the Julian calendar. As Christianity spread in the Roman Empire, Church leaders may have chosen December 25th to provide a Christian alternative to popular pagan festivals—reframing the "birth of the sun" as the "birth of the Son." Absorbing older traditions helps spread a new cult quicker as existing followers have familiarity.

Is he outside of space and time?

Yes it was. You asked why at time of year and I pointed out Christianity absorbed a late December festival from older traditions.

If a methodology allows you to take contradictory positions it is not reliable. A reliable methodology to reach truth takes you to the truth, not to two or more contradictory positions.

Christianity absorbed traditions from older cultures—like virgin births, resurrections, gift-giving, December festivals, and decorated trees—to make its message more relatable and easier to adopt. These elements were already familiar in pagan religions and seasonal celebrations, so early Christians repurposed them with new meanings. This blending, known as cultural syncretism, helped the new faith spread by aligning with existing customs rather than replacing them entirely.

Before we can get onto if a God is making me do something. We'd first need to establish he exists. Existence requires being spatial and temporal and if he is outside space and time, then by definition he does not exist.

1) Argumentum ad populum fallacy (again) Plus even more flawed when those three religions you mention are not compatible with each other in terms of their accounts. 2) Do you agree that if a methodology allows you to support directly contradictory positions it is not a reliable path to truth?

Christianity absorbed traditions from older cultures—like virgin births, resurrections, gift-giving, December festivals, and decorated trees—to make its message more relatable and easier to adopt. These elements were already familiar in pagan religions and seasonal celebrations, so early Christians repurposed them with new meanings. This blending, known as cultural syncretism, helped the new faith spread by aligning with existing customs rather than replacing them entirely.