Science is a false God

[JChnsc19]

I did not really consider it seriously, but I have seen no evidence for empathy either.

I’m just gonna keep calling troll, Po or narcissist until “someone” shuts me up with EVIDENCE. He’s rambled on for pages and yet we’re missing hmm, what’s that, oh yeah... evidence. Y’all can’t fix personality disorders

 

[ecco]

Your argumentum ad assertio is irrational.

Aut disce aut discede.

Yeah, for some reason you must think this is our first conversation with a JW. You must think that we haven't posted about the unfulfilled prophesies many times before. I don't need to post the details of your sects false prophesies to verify my "assertions". You know them as well as we do.

Now that we have that straightened out, would you care to comment on the unfulfilled prophecies?

 

[ecco]

Ex : Evidence Santa Claus cannot exist in reality.

All of the comments relating to Santa in your example also apply to your god.

The conclusion...

In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.​

...also equally applies to your god.

In conclusion - If God ever DID flood the entire earth, he's dead now.​

 

[ecco]

It seems you believe you have conclusive evidence, then, that Jehovah God does not nor cannot exist.

Do you believe that Thor exists? If not, should we ask you to provide conclusive evidence that he does not and cannot exist?

Do you believe that Nana-Buluku exists? If not, should we ask you to provide conclusive evidence that he does not and cannot exist?

Do you believe that Shiva exists? If not, should we ask you to provide conclusive evidence that he does not and cannot exist?

Nonsense isn't it.



On the other hand, you believe Jehovah God exists. You've provided no evidence for Jehovah God's existence.

So, by your own signature...

After all, "That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."​

...your claim must be dismissed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m just gonna keep calling troll, Po or narcissist until “someone” shuts me up with EVIDENCE. He’s rambled on for pages and yet we’re missing hmm, what’s that, oh yeah... evidence. Y’all can’t fix personality disorders

What he is calling logical arguments are not so much either. Non sequiturs and projection of his style of categorical fallacy onto others. He is claiming many things, but offering nothing except a lot of insulting and arrogant banter.

I think a call of 'troll' is appropriate.

 

[gnostic]

None that have survived, yes, but is this really so significant given that Moses' original papyri or parchments could not have survived to our day?

Here, you are just speculating that Moses wrote something thing down in the Late Bronze Age, but no such person (eg Abraham, Moses) or sources (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers) exist in this period.

All you have writing in the mid-1st millennium Iron Age writings.

And there are no independent records (eg Egyptian, Babylonian Canannite, Ugaritic) that record events (eg Moses liberating Israelites and starting their exodus out of Rameses, Exodus 12:37-41), no records Israelite invasion and colonisation of Canaan (Joshua and Jericho).

The only possible reference to Israel, is on the victory stele of Merneptah. Merneptah was a 19th dynasty Egyptian king (reign 1213 - 1203 BCE), son of Ramesses II (reign 1279 - 1213 BCE). The stele contained hieroglyphic inscriptions, which Merneptah's army had defeated Libya, the Hittite (Hatti), Canaan (and captured 3 cities), and had "laid waste" to I.si.ri.ar or ysri-r which some scholars believed to be Israel.

The identity to Israel in the stele, is not really conclusive, and it doesn't mention anyone by names, like Joshua, one of the Judges, and certainly no mention of Moses.

Other than this possible inscription to Israel, nothing.

And speaking of Ramesses II. Ramesses II was the one who actually had the city of Rameses (mentioned Rameses construction in Exodus 1:11 and Moses leaving Rameses 12:37). Rameses is which the Egyptians called Pi-Ramesses, which mean the House of Ramesses.

But according to the archaeological evidences in Jericho (Jericho IV), the destruction and abandonment has been recently dated to 1573 BCE. This date agree with Kathleen Kenyon's date of 1550 BCE in 1950s, than with John Garstang's 1930's date of around 1400 BCE.

The problems with Garstang (1930s) and Bryant Wood in 1990 is that they tried to fit make the evidences fit with Joshua's narrative, and not look at the evidences themselves.

But I don't blame Garstang, because archaeology was still a growing field, so he he didn't have the technology to conclusive date the materials found. Wood on the other hand, allowed his religious bias to dictate what he is willing to accept.

The event of Jericho happened before Pi-Ramesses, but in Exodus 1:11 and Joshua 6, the destruction of Jericho occurred after Rameses construction and after Moses' death.

The archaeology clearly don't agree with the order of events in Exodus and Joshua in regarding to Rameses and Jericho.

Anyway, you are merely expressing your opinions regarding to Moses' lost papyri or parchments.

 

[ratiocinator]

Thing is, neurotypical human beings do not deem sex slavery, pedophilia, the gunning down of helpless little children...

And yet we find you steadfastly refusing to condemn the indiscriminate slaughter of children when it's ordered by your god in your holy book (1 Samuel 15:3).

 

[Skreeper]

Which is absolutely irrelevant since everything Hitler did, for instance, was completely lawful.

My question still remains: Can you tell the difference between good and evil or not?

Let me give it a shot: I can tell the difference between good and evil but I am the one who decides for myself what I consider good or evil, there is nothing objectively good or evil and absolute morality is nonsense.

It works the same way with beauty. When I look at a flower and tell you that I think it is beautiful, do you then demand I give you an objective criteria how I can tell the difference between beautiful and ugly??

 

[Polymath257]

And therein lies the rub. For you to operate from inside your materialistic, non-transcendent worldview and then demand materialistic evidence for the non-material, transcendent God (which invariably exists outside your perceived worldview) is a logically fallacious category error since it requires material evidence of the non-material, non-transcendent proof of the transcendent. It is exactly like asking to have an idea put on a scale or what color a song is. It does not work as they are completely different categories.

So, if there is no evidence of this transcendent realm (which you seem to say is impossible to give evidence for), why even believe it exists at all?

I would point out that it *is* possible to show the existence of color to a blind person or of sound to a deaf person. They may not be able to *experience* these things directly, but the existence can be conclusively demonstrated in ways similar to how we show the existence of radio waves, ultrasound, neutrinos, or many other aspects of this universe that we do not have the senses to directly detect.

As Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem makes evident, ‘Whatsoever may be bounded cannot explicate itself without referring to that which is without itself - some postulate whose certainty is unobtainable.’

So many people quote Godel's results that don't understand what they say. Unless you are a first order logical system with a recursive axiom system, Godel's incompleteness theorem simply doesn't apply. If you don't know what those words mean, then you don't understand enough to know when it *does* apply. For example, it is known that the analog of Godel's result is *false* for second order logical systems. Also, axiomatic systems are very poor models for intelligent agents interacting with a universe that is often unpredictable.

This is just what famed Physicist and Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell alluded to when he came to the conclusion, “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent, it must have been created.”

I believe I answered this one the first time you ave this post. Maxwell lived in the 1800 and didn't see the rise of General relativity or Quantum theory, both of which are highly relevant to questions concerning the formation of the universe. His views on this topic are badly out of date.

 

[Polymath257]

It seems you believe you have conclusive evidence, then, that Jehovah God does not nor cannot exist.

No evidence is absolutely conclusive concerning the non-existence of something in reality. But I can put my level of confidence in the non-existence of deity in the Bible as about the same level as my confidence that there are no invisible unicorns in my office.

 

[LuisDantas]

Many who say there is no God because science can't prove it actually worship science.

"Let us notice this morning how modern man has made a god of science. It was quite easy for modern man to put his ultimate faith in science because science had brought about such remarkable advances, such tangible and amazing victories. He realized that man through his scientific genius had dwarfed distances and placed time in chains. He noticed the new comforts that had been brought about by science, from the vast improvements in communication to the elimination of many dread plagues and diseases. And so after noticing these astounding successes modern man ushered in a new god and a new religion. Individual scientist became the high priests, chemical and biological instrumants became sacramental agencies through which the invisible grace of the scientific god became visibly manifested, and scientific laboratories became the sanctuaries. And so modern man dutifully worshipped at the shrine of the god of science.

But today we are confronted with the tragic fact that the god of science which we so devoutly worshipped has brought about the possibility of universal annihilation, and so man today stands on the brink of atomic destruction aghast, panic-stricken and petrified. He realizes now that his greatest need is not science which is power, but wisdom which is control. Doubtless some one has been saying, but is it not right to devote ourselves to scientific adventure? Is not science important for the progress of civilization? To this I would answer yes. No person of sound intelligence could minimize science. It is not science in itself that I am condemning, {but it is the tendency of projecting it to the status of God that I am condemning.} We must come to see that science only furnishes us with the means by which we live, but never with the spiritual ends for which we live. And so we must turn back and give our ultimate devotion to the God who integrates the whole of life, to the God in whom we live and move and have our being, to the God who has been our help in ages past, our hope for years to come, our shelter from the stormy blast, and our eternal home.6 Preached July 5, 1953"
False Gods We Worship | The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute

Shows you that even an admirable man such as MLK Jr. is not above talking nonsense every now and then.

I have little notion of how come people see fit to say such things, but I suspect that it involves misconceptions about the nature and role of worship and God-beliefs. Quite possibly of science as well.

 

[Audie]

Shows you that even an admirable man such as MLK Jr. is not above talking nonsense every now and then.

I have little notion of how come people see fit to say such things, but I suspect that it involves misconceptions about the nature and role of worship and God-beliefs. Quite possibly of science as well.

NLK was seemingly a man of character, but I do not
think anyone mistook him for an intellectual.

For that matter, look through that sermon for
the kind of language-

"chains..high priests. science worship, tragic, atomic
destruction,stormy blast..."

Nothing intellectual there is is a sermon, an op ed.

 

[Maximilian]

And yet we find you steadfastly refusing to condemn the indiscriminate slaughter of children when it's ordered by your god in your holy book (1 Samuel 15:3).

Why would God tolerate the evil?

 

[We Never Know]

Why would God tolerate the evil?

If God didn't want to tolerate evil, why did he create evil?

 

[ecco]

Many who say there is no God because science can't prove it actually worship science.

"Let us notice this morning how modern man has made a god of science. It was quite easy for modern man to put his ultimate faith in science because science had brought about such remarkable advances, such tangible and amazing victories. He realized that man through his scientific genius had dwarfed distances and placed time in chains. He noticed the new comforts that had been brought about by science, from the vast improvements in communication to the elimination of many dread plagues and diseases. And so after noticing these astounding successes modern man ushered in a new god and a new religion. Individual scientist became the high priests, chemical and biological instrumants became sacramental agencies through which the invisible grace of the scientific god became visibly manifested, and scientific laboratories became the sanctuaries. And so modern man dutifully worshipped at the shrine of the god of science.

But today we are confronted with the tragic fact that the god of science which we so devoutly worshipped has brought about the possibility of universal annihilation, and so man today stands on the brink of atomic destruction aghast, panic-stricken and petrified. He realizes now that his greatest need is not science which is power, but wisdom which is control. Doubtless some one has been saying, but is it not right to devote ourselves to scientific adventure? Is not science important for the progress of civilization? To this I would answer yes. No person of sound intelligence could minimize science. It is not science in itself that I am condemning, {but it is the tendency of projecting it to the status of God that I am condemning.} We must come to see that science only furnishes us with the means by which we live, but never with the spiritual ends for which we live. And so we must turn back and give our ultimate devotion to the God who integrates the whole of life, to the God in whom we live and move and have our being, to the God who has been our help in ages past, our hope for years to come, our shelter from the stormy blast, and our eternal home.6 Preached July 5, 1953"
False Gods We Worship | The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute

Do you really think the best way to start a thread is with an intentionally out of context quote?

In the article, it shows that King also used phrases like
“The False God of Nationalism" and "the false god of racial prejudice.

In any event, King was the son of a preacher and was deeply religious. Do you suppose he could have mobilized millions of people by preaching "In the name of science, we must end racial discrimination"?

He also said this in the above:

Is not science important for the progress of civilization? To this I would answer yes. No person of sound intelligence could minimize science. It is not science in itself that I am condemning, {but it is the tendency of projecting it to the status of God that I am condemning.}​

So his comments are far above those of the average Fundy we get in these forums.

 

[Audie]

If God didn't want to tolerate evil, why did he create evil?

This should explain it very well. Great movie!

 

[Audie]

Do you really think the best way to start a thread is with an intentionally out of context quote?

In the article, it shows that King also used phrases like
“The False God of Nationalism" and "the false god of racial prejudice.

In any event, King was the son of a preacher and was deeply religious. Do you suppose he could have mobilized millions of people by preaching "In the name of science, we must end racial discrimination"?

He also said this in the above:
Is not science important for the progress of civilization? To this I would answer yes. No person of sound intelligence could minimize science. It is not science in itself that I am condemning, {but it is the tendency of projecting it to the status of God that I am condemning.}

So his comments are far above those of the average Fundy we get in these forums.

I think remte has fled the interview.

 

[We Never Know]

This should explain it very well. Great movie!

Very good movie.

 

[Polymath257]

Why would God tolerate the evil?

Sounds like a good argument for the *non-existence* of a God.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why would God tolerate the evil?

You can't have it both ways. You are trying to argue for objective morality, on the basis that:-

Thing is, neurotypical human beings do not deem sex slavery, pedophilia, the gunning down of helpless little children, brutality, democide, gang rape, racism or even serial homicide as merely socially improper conduct, like, say, picking your nostrils at the dinner table. Much rather, these jolt, outrage as well as horrify.

and then attempting justifying one of those very things (killing of helpless little children) when it's ordered by your god in you favourite book of myths.

Seems to me that those of us who think morality is subjective are being a lot more morally consistent than you who are trying to claim it's objective....