Science is a false God

[Maximilian]

Matthew 7:5

Your point?

 

[Maximilian]

it is an appeal to consequences fallacy.

Where is your evidence?

 

[Maximilian]

Your evidence for this statement is missing.

Evil-

: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing
: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity
: causing harm : highly injurious or destructive : likely to cause or capable of producing death


It is because evil is a reality that goodness exists in contrast. Only a psychopath would pretend neither are real . . .

 

[Maximilian]

The problem with the Canaanites is that they were settled and prosperous.

Incorrect. The Amalekites, just to illustrate, were “the first one of the nations” to launch an unprovoked assault on the Israelites after the Exodus, at Rephidim in the vicinity of Mount Sinai. For this reason, Jehovah decreed absolute annihilation for the Amalekites. (Nu 24:20 ; Ex 17:8-16 ; De 25:17-19) Twice in the course of the period of the Judges these acrimonious foes of Israel shared in attacking Israel. They did it in the times of Eglon king of Moab. (Jg 3:12, 13) Yet again, with the Midianites together with Easterners, they ransacked the territory of Israel seven years before Gideon together with his 300 men dealt them a great defeat.—Jg 6:1-3, 33 ; 7:12 ; 10:12. As a result of their unrelenting violence, in the period of the kings Jehovah ‘called to account’ the Amalekites, instructing King Saul to strike them down, which he actually did “from Havilah as far as Shur, which is in front of Egypt.” (1Sa 15:2-33)

Meanwhile, demon worship, child sacrifice, sadistic violence, together with a range of disgusting sex worship were the order of the day with the Canaanites. Being a God of justice, Jehovah would not make it possible for these types of sickening practices to thwart the tranquility and safety of godly human beings, in particular Israel. (Deuteronomy 5:9)


To illustrate, imagine if the neighborhood where you reside was without a legitimate police force or militia to apply the laws and regulations of the land—would that not give rise to sheer bedlam and violent rioting of the worst kind? Equally, Jehovah was required to take action against the Canaanites owing to their licentiousness as well as the legitimate peril they presented to humanity. For this reason, he decreed: “the land is unclean, and I will bring punishment on it for its error, and the land will vomit its inhabitants out.”—Leviticus 18:25. “ It is because of the wickedness of these nations that Jehovah is driving them away from before you”, he conveyed to the Israelites at Deuteronomy 9:4-6, “It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to take possession of their land.”

 

[Maximilian]

Why believe in a 'transcendent' at all then?

Because of all of the evidence for the transcendent.

 

[Maximilian]

Are you a first order logical system with a recursively defined axiom system?

Your Scientism is. It is suffused with assumptions that can never be verified scientifically. The epistemology of such radical positivism, as a result, abrogates science itself. Take, for instance, the concept of induction. It just cannot be scientifically defended. Attempting to render a conclusive inductive line of reasoning for radical positivism is ridiculous as this begs the question by presupposing the legitimacy of inductive reasoning, to begin with!


All the more devastating to your beliefs is the fact that radical positivism is self-refuting. At its heart, this pernicious conviction declares that we must not accept any belief that cannot be scientifically verified. What about that very supposition, though? It cannot per se be scientifically tested out much less corroborated. As a result, we ought not to believe it. Your trusty Radical Positivism, as a result, asphyxiates itself.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

So like a heap of dead leaves blown to and fro by the changing wind, wheresoever the herd impels you establishes for you what’s moral or immoral.

This means, to illustrate, that, had you been in Stalin’s Russia you would have cheerfully gone along with the numerous pogroms as well as the Great Purges. And why wouldn’t you? At that moment, it's precisely what these argued was moral.

With no objective moral values or obligations, you would have had absolutely no objective justifications to not follow along with their moral yardstick - despite the fact that it resulted in murdering men, women and young children simply because of their ethnicity.

In the final analysis when you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything.

As Voltaire put it, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

The laws of the society you live in are made to punish law breakers.
Prove there are objective morals.

 

[Maximilian]

Maxwell lived in the middle to late 1800's. We've learned a few things since then. For example, Maxwell didn't know the Einstein equation E=mc^2. He didn't know anything about quantum mechanics. He knew nothing about the internal structure of atoms, nor the various types of subatomic particles.

I'd like to understand you better, if I could. To that end, permit me to inquire, if I may, have you ever been assessed for ASD? ([Self-Test] Autism Spectrum Disorder Symptoms in Adults)

 

[Maximilian]

Prove there are objective morals.

Are you truly unable to distinguish between good and evil?

 

[Maximilian]

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, he could have been wrong in his conclusions?

No. The premise that the universe began to exist is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find that statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

So I'm simply saying that the best scientific evidence we have today supports the truth of that premise. And from that, the rest of the irrefutable argument for God's necessary existence follows. So in no way is this an appeal to ignorance, to try to punt to God to explain what we don't understand. It is a natural conclusion from the logical validity of the preceding premisses. In other words, it's simple, mundane logic.

 

[ratiocinator]

You're not suggesting that, for instance, the genocide of Triads, Nordicists, Zetas, Baasskaps, MS-13s, Jihadists, Mungikis, Bloods, Yakuzas, Bratvas, Nazis and other such evil peoples would be morally wrong, are you?

Did you even look at the passage I referenced? 1 Samuel 15:3 : "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***."

Are you claiming that the indiscriminate slaughter of everybody, including children, infants, and even sheep, was anything but immoral?

As for your question: yes - genocide is always wrong (according to my moral code and many Christians too).

Really? Can you take a moment and prove what’s so unclear about these?

Cherry picking. Compare Matthew 5:43-46 (which you quoted here) with 1 Samuel 15:3 (above).

Your point?

Look at the absurdities that you believe.

Where is your evidence?

It's in your post. There was no argument for absolute morality, just some stuff about the bad consequences of there not being (according to you). I note that you totally ignored my point about nobody having reliable access to absolute morality, even if it exists.

Evil-

: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing
: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity
: causing harm : highly injurious or destructive : likely to cause or capable of producing death

In what way is that an "objective moral value"?

Oh and try to answer a post with one post next time...

 

[Maximilian]

Islam believes in the same god as the Jews.

What is your evidence?

 

[Maximilian]

Islam believes in the same god as the Jews.
What is wrong in using science and technology to make the desert aliveable place? Praying to a god doesn't change the desert.

What a curious thing to say . . .

I'd like to understand you better, if I could. To that end, permit me to inquire, if I may, have you ever been assessed for ASD? ([Self-Test] Autism Spectrum Disorder Symptoms in Adults)

 

[Maximilian]

according to my moral code

That's not persuasive. You need to prove your moral code is objectively true. Can you?

 

[Maximilian]

Are you claiming that the indiscriminate slaughter of everybody, including children, infants, and even sheep, was anything but immoral?

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Elizabeth Bathory, Brian And David Freeman, Nelson Byrdwell, Edmund Kemper, Joshua Phillips, Willie Bosket, Laurie Tackett, Brenda Anne Spencer, Jon Venables, Robert Thompson, Jesse Pomeroy, Mary Bell, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Jamie Rouse, Barry Loukaitis, Talat Pasha, Margaret Sanger, Josef Mengele, Reinhard Heydrich, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, Kim Il Sung, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Emperor Hirohito, Nero, Caligula, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Leopold II of Belgium, Tomas de Torquemada, Mao Zedong, Ivan the Terrible, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Vlad Dracula once beautiful little babies too?

 

[Maximilian]

There was no argument for absolute morality,

Are you truly incapable of distinguishing between good and evil?

 

[sooda]

Incorrect. The Amalekites, just to illustrate, were “the first one of the nations” to launch an unprovoked assault on the Israelites after the Exodus, at Rephidim in the vicinity of Mount Sinai. For this reason, Jehovah decreed absolute annihilation for the Amalekites. (Nu 24:20 ; Ex 17:8-16 ; De 25:17-19) Twice in the course of the period of the Judges these acrimonious foes of Israel shared in attacking Israel. They did it in the times of Eglon king of Moab. (Jg 3:12, 13) Yet again, with the Midianites together with Easterners, they ransacked the territory of Israel seven years before Gideon together with his 300 men dealt them a great defeat.—Jg 6:1-3, 33 ; 7:12 ; 10:12. As a result of their unrelenting violence, in the period of the kings Jehovah ‘called to account’ the Amalekites, instructing King Saul to strike them down, which he actually did “from Havilah as far as Shur, which is in front of Egypt.” (1Sa 15:2-33)

Meanwhile, demon worship, child sacrifice, sadistic violence, together with a range of disgusting sex worship were the order of the day with the Canaanites. Being a God of justice, Jehovah would not make it possible for these types of sickening practices to thwart the tranquility and safety of godly human beings, in particular Israel. (Deuteronomy 5:9)


To illustrate, imagine if the neighborhood where you reside was without a legitimate police force or militia to apply the laws and regulations of the land—would that not give rise to sheer bedlam and violent rioting of the worst kind? Equally, Jehovah was required to take action against the Canaanites owing to their licentiousness as well as the legitimate peril they presented to humanity. For this reason, he decreed: “the land is unclean, and I will bring punishment on it for its error, and the land will vomit its inhabitants out.”—Leviticus 18:25. “ It is because of the wickedness of these nations that Jehovah is driving them away from before you”, he conveyed to the Israelites at Deuteronomy 9:4-6, “It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to take possession of their land.”

What you posted is national myth.. Its rooted in envy. Canaanites lived in settle communities and were involved in pottery making, metallurgy and mining. The copper mines of Timna were originally Egyptian until they were taken over by the Canaanites. They paid tribute to Pharaoh.

They prospered and had a rich narrative about their pantheon of gods. They also had poetry some of which was borrowed to make up Psalms.

 

[Maximilian]

I note that you totally ignored my point about nobody having reliable access to absolute morality, even if it exists.

God Almighty is good the very same way rain is wet, diamond gemstones are hard, photons tear across space at luminous speeds or cerulean suns blaze. Therefore if we envision God’s goodness in terms of His possessing definite virtues as opposed to fulfilling selected duties, we get an infinitely more exalted and correct notion of God.

Jehovah God is to be adored for His moral identity as He is fundamentally loving, just, kind, and so on. It is simply because God is that way that all these traits count as virtues to start with. Accordingly, anything standing in opposition to God is evil.

Which means that everything we need to be truly good has been given to all of us within the pages of the Holy Bible.

 

[Maximilian]

What you posted is national myth..

Prove it.

 

[ratiocinator]

No. The premise that the universe began to exist is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find that statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today..

Actually, it depends critically on what you define and "the universe" and what you mean by "began to exist". Not that it matters much to the laughable argument for god that follows.

So I'm simply saying that the best scientific evidence we have today supports the truth of that premise. And from that, the rest of the irrefutable argument for God's necessary existence follows. So in no way is this an appeal to ignorance, to try to punt to God to explain what we don't understand. It is a natural conclusion from the logical validity of the preceding premisses. In other words, it's simple, mundane logic

Thanks for the laugh - that's one of the silliest expositions of that argument for god I've seen in a long time. It falls down from the start. (1) is probably wrong, (2) is doubtful, so (3) doesn't follow, (4) is absurd... and so on.