Science is a false God

[Maximilian]

Sorry, but no. Just because we two agree on a moral value does not make that moral value objective. It is still our subjective judgement, we just happen to agree on it. You probably consider my sexual preference as 'evil' which would be a moral value we would disagree on.

Even more reason to enthusiastically embrace our Creator's loving guidance, no?

“I, Jehovah, am your God,
The One teaching you to benefit yourself,
The One guiding you in the way you should walk.
If only you would pay attention to my commandments!
Then your peace would become just like a river
And your righteousness like the waves of the sea." -Isaiah 48:17, 18

 

[Shantanu]

Nobody worships science - it is a method of understanding not a religious system. If there is a god there has never been a time greater than now for that god to save us from what we are doing. So were is god now?

I am God in human form, infallible and perfect in all the actions that I undertake: what do you want from me?

 

[Maximilian]

Absolutely. Of course, don't use any of the tired arguments that have been shown to be faulty.

Examples:
1. First Cause argument
2. Design.
3. Ontological Argument
4. Moral Argument.

That is, unless you can do a *much* better job at them than, say, William Craig.

Well, the fact that there are dozens upon dozens of fulfilled Bible prophecies constitutes probative evidence of the existence of its author, Jehovah God. This fact is, by far, the most compelling logical reason why millions upon millions of rational people today the world over only accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of Jehovah God. Simply no other book – religious or not – comes with such illustrious prominence. Because it's impossible for any person to foresee with complete precision what's sure to occur from one hour to the next, there's no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin.

I kindly invite you to examine for yourself various examples of these specific and accurately fulfilled prophecies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're misinformed. First, while it's true that Jehovah God did use the nation of Israel to execute the evil these lost God's favor when they murdered his son, Jesus. So there is no longer a covenant between Jehovah God and Israel. They are not his people.

Next, Christians do not go to war especially since no nation today can rightfully claim to be Jehovah God's chosen people. All who wage war do so at the behest of their government, never Jehovah God.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

I am God in human form, infallible and perfect in all the actions that I undertake: what do you want from me?

A new car. With good mileage. Nothing too snazzy.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, the fact that there are dozens upon dozens of fulfilled Bible prophecies constitutes probative evidence of the existence of its author, Jehovah God. This fact is, by far, the most compelling logical reason why millions upon millions of rational people today the world over only accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of Jehovah God. Simply no other book – religious or not – comes with such illustrious prominence. Because it's impossible for any person to foresee with complete precision what's sure to occur from one hour to the next, there's no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin.

I kindly invite you to examine for yourself various examples of these specific and accurately fulfilled prophecies.

If this is the best you can do, then there isn't much to discuss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, the fact that there are dozens upon dozens of fulfilled Bible prophecies constitutes probative evidence of the existence of its author, Jehovah God. This fact is, by far, the most compelling logical reason why millions upon millions of rational people today the world over only accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of Jehovah God. Simply no other book – religious or not – comes with such illustrious prominence. Because it's impossible for any person to foresee with complete precision what's sure to occur from one hour to the next, there's no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin.

I kindly invite you to examine for yourself various examples of these specific and accurately fulfilled prophecies.

Been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt. The problem is that none of the prophecies that I found could meet these more than reasonable standards:


Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

As you pointed out no human "prophet" could meet those standards. Neither could the prophets in the Bible.

 

[Maximilian]

The so-called Biblical prophecies are weak prophesies, at best.

How so?

 

[Maximilian]

So now you're claiming that every single defenceless Amalekite child was evil?

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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so?

See my above post.

 

[Polymath257]

How so?

because those are very poor quality 'prophecies'. At best, they are too vague to be meaningful or too easily predictable to be prophetic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, I wonder if I am on ignore. @Maximilian never could answer the question of children of slaves being slaves in another thread. I think he may be using the ostrich defense. Pretend that posts that refute his claims do not exist.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Yes. Does that justify killing them? Would it be OK to abort them in the womb?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. Does that justify killing them? Would it be OK to abort them in the womb?

There are cases where God is pro-abortion in the Bible:

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-29 - New International Version

 

[Maximilian]

As I pointed out, all of Quantum mechanics and General relativity. Both are quite relevant to the question of the origin of the universe, with QM showing that classical notions of causality are simply false.

And Science without a doubt does not have experience of stuffs popping into being ex nihilo sine causa. Bohmian mechanics, for instance, is completely deterministic and furthermore emphasizes that every indeterminacy is actually conceptual.

“Being never arises from nonbeing,” “something will not originate from nothing” are putative metaphysical principles, just like cause and causatum, unhindered in their application. Hence, we certainly have excellent grounds, both abstractly as well as scientifically, for reasoning that whatsoever begins to exist, as in the case of the universe 13.7 billion years ago, has a cause.

 

[Maximilian]

Yes. Does that justify killing them? Would it be OK to abort them in the womb?

What human being has the ability to accurately foresee the acts of anyone while they're still a child?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And Science without a doubt does not have experience of stuffs popping into being ex nihilo sine causa. Bohmian mechanics, for instance, is completely deterministic and furthermore emphasizes that every indeterminacy is actually conceptual.

“Being never arises from nonbeing,” “something will not originate from nothing” are putative metaphysical principles, just like cause and causatum, unhindered in their application. Hence, we certainly have excellent grounds, both abstractly as well as scientifically, for reasoning that whatsoever begins to exist, as in the case of the universe 13.7 billion years ago, has a cause.

Something from "nothing":

The Casimir Effect

 

[Subduction Zone]

What human being has the ability to accurately foresee the acts of anyone while they're still a child?

A person is not evil until they perform evil. Right now you are arguing against free will which would mean that God is guilty of all evil since he was the one that created everything. Logic is not your friend in this debate.

 

[Maximilian]

because those are very poor quality 'prophecies'. At best, they are too vague to be meaningful or too easily predictable to be prophetic.

Meaning that if a Bible prophecy predicted specific monumental events many, many years in advance you would find this persuasive?

 

[Polymath257]

And Science without a doubt does not have experience of stuffs popping into being ex nihilo sine causa. Bohmian mechanics, for instance, is completely deterministic and furthermore emphasizes that every indeterminacy is actually conceptual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

And fails miserably as a relativistic theory. No serious physicist takes it seriously. As far as I can tell, only a few philosophers do. part of the reason is that to use Bohmian mechanics, you have to do the calculations for ordinary quantum mechanics first.

“Being never arises from nonbeing,” “something will not originate from nothing” are putative metaphysical principles, just like cause and causatum, unhindered in their application. Hence, we certainly have excellent grounds, both abstractly as well as scientifically, for reasoning that whatsoever begins to exist, as in the case of the universe 13.7 billion years ago, has a cause.

Causality is known to be flawed in quantum mechanics because of Bell's inequalities. We know, for example, that the timing of a nuclear decay isn't caused.

Based on everything we know, everything that has a cause has a cause within the universe. To even talk about causality outside of the universe is a category error.

 

[Polymath257]

Meaning that if a Bible prophecy predicted specific monumental events many, many years in advance you would find this persuasive?

If you can show the Biblical prediction actually happened before the events, that the events were clearly predicted, and happened precisely as predicted, that would at least be some evidence.

But, we know that you prefer dates for Biblical texts that are, at the very least, controversial. And, given the website you linked to, the clarity of the predictions you accept seems to be quite low.

Do you have anything even close to, say, my ability to predict an eclipse of the sun to within the second years ahead of time?

/E: And no, the 'prediction' that Israel would form a nation doesn't qualify.