Science is a false God

[Maximilian]

Typical claims that anyone against the ones writing the propaganda are evil and deserve anything that happens to them.

Sorry, that just doens't wash.

Thank you for sharing your opinion

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm so very sorry for the oversight!

What did you want to know?

I am not the first in the queue, there are several ahead of me by my count.

 

[Maximilian]

So you have never read the OT?
God committed mass murder and commanded it.

Then prove it.

 

[Maximilian]

You can't prove something that doesn't exist.

Are you insinuating that an unrestricted negative can't be proven ? On the other hand wouldn't that render your own claim an unrestricted negative?


In turn, if unrestricted negatives cannot be verified, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. But if there is absolutely no way to prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, it must be possible to substantiate an unrestricted negative.


Which means that your allegation is self-refuting - if it's true, it's false!


Ex : Evidence Santa Claus cannot exist in reality.


Now try to apply the same approach to God Almighty.


But if that’s too hard for you, apply the same reasoning used to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem.

 

[Maximilian]

So who created evil?

If you want me to teach you you'll need to answer my question first please

 

[Maximilian]

I don't have to provide evidence of something that doesn't exist.

If it is your belief that God does not nor cannot exist then, yes, absolutely, there are evidentiary assumptions you’ve made along with a stance adopted on that evidence and, as a result, an evidentiary burden you’ve assumed.

Accordingly, you need to prove your claim otherwise you're irrational.

Unless you're not an Atheist but Agnostic. Are you Agnostic?

 

[Maximilian]

To date, there are no older writing (relating to the Old Testament) than Ketef Hinnom's Silver Scrolls.

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?

 

[Polymath257]

With all due respect and kindness, given your apparent ASD trying to persuade you of God's existence would be as productive as attempting to explain the color blue to one who was born blind or the magnificence of a sublime aria to one who was deaf from birth . . .

I wish you all the best

I see. So a score of 24% makes me unqualified to do simple logic? Or to understand that your claims for the existence of a deity rest on absurdly weak foundations?

It looks to me like you simply want to de-humanize those who disagree with you. So when you can't actually support your viewpoints, you literally do an ad hominem against others.

And your hiding this complete lack of reason behind claims of 'respect and kindness' allows me to understand more about you than I care to.

 

[Polymath257]

If it is your belief that God does not nor cannot exist then, yes, absolutely, there are evidentiary assumptions you’ve made along with a stance adopted on that evidence and, as a result, an evidentiary burden you’ve assumed.

Accordingly, you need to prove your claim otherwise you're irrational.

Unless you're not an Atheist but Agnostic. Are you Agnostic?

You seem to be confused about some terminology.

An Atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a deity, either because they have no been convinced of the existence of such a being or because they actually think no such being exists. Atheism is a statement about belief.

Agnosticism, however, is a claim about what can be known. An agnostic simply says it is impossible to know whether a deity exists or not.

It is completely possible to be an agnostic (saying knowledge is impossible) and to be either a theist or an atheist. It is also possible to be an atheist that is also an agnostic (not having a belief, but thinking knowledge is impossible) or an atheist who thinks it *is* possible to have knowledge about this issue.

There are also differences between weak atheists (who simply don't have a belief) and strong atheists (who believe no deities exist).

A weak atheist who is also agnostic need not justify the lack of belief farther than to say the available evidence isn't sufficient to get a conclusion and that they believe *no* such evidence is possible.

 

[Maximilian]

I see. So a score of 24% makes me unqualified to do simple logic? Or to understand that your claims for the existence of a deity rest on absurdly weak foundations?

It looks to me like you simply want to de-humanize those who disagree with you. So when you can't actually support your viewpoints, you literally do an ad hominem against others.

And your hiding this complete lack of reason behind claims of 'respect and kindness' allows me to understand more about you than I care to.

Logic? If this were merely a matter of logic you would at the minimum be open to the possibility of God's existence since you cannot conclusively prove that he does not nor cannot exist.

Unless I'm mistaken and you're actually Agnostic. Are you?

 

[Polymath257]

Not everyone that claims to subscribe to Christianity has empathy either.

Nor does everyone who claims to be an empath.

 

[Maximilian]

You seem to be confused about some terminology.

An Atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a deity, either because they have no been convinced of the existence of such a being or because they actually think no such being exists. Atheism is a statement about belief.

Agnosticism, however, is a claim about what can be known. An agnostic simply says it is impossible to know whether a deity exists or not.

It is completely possible to be an agnostic (saying knowledge is impossible) and to be either a theist or an atheist. It is also possible to be an atheist that is also an agnostic (not having a belief, but thinking knowledge is impossible) or an atheist who thinks it *is* possible to have knowledge about this issue.

There are also differences between weak atheists (who simply don't have a belief) and strong atheists (who believe no deities exist).

A weak atheist who is also agnostic need not justify the lack of belief farther than to say the available evidence isn't sufficient to get a conclusion and that they believe *no* such evidence is possible.

And what camp do you fall in?

 

[Polymath257]

Logic? If this were merely a matter of logic you would at the minimum be open to the possibility of God's existence since you cannot conclusively prove that he does not nor cannot exist.

Unless I'm mistaken and you're actually Agnostic. Are you?

For some concepts of 'God', I believe (if you equate God to the universe, I believe in the universe). For some, I think no evidence either way is possible (a deity that is amoral and doesn't care any longer, for example). And others, I think it *is* possible to know the non-existence (the Abrahamic deity, for example, as described in the Bible).

What I deny is the coherency of the concept of a supernatural. Once the tern 'natural' is properly understood, the concept of a 'supernatural' is shown to be self-contradictory.

So, any deity that is 'supernatural' I think can be shown to not exist.

 

[Polymath257]

And what camp do you fall in?

Depends on which deity you are talking about. In regards to taking the Bible literally, I think it almost trivial to show the non-existence.

For more sophisticated concepts of 'God', I think it either trivial (pantheism, at least in some versions) or false for metaphysical reasons.

 

[Polymath257]

Logic? If this were merely a matter of logic you would at the minimum be open to the possibility of God's existence since you cannot conclusively prove that he does not nor cannot exist.

But, from what I an see, the existence is completely untestable. At that point, it becomes meaningless to claim existence at all. The default position is then for non-existence (as it would be for unevidenced subatomic particles, for example).

 

[Maximilian]

Depends on which deity you are talking about. In regards to taking the Bible literally, I think it almost trivial to show the non-existence.

For more sophisticated concepts of 'God', I think it either trivial (pantheism, at least in some versions) or false for metaphysical reasons.

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

 

[Maximilian]

But, from what I an see, the existence is completely untestable. At that point, it becomes meaningless to claim existence at all. The default position is then for non-existence (as it would be for unevidenced subatomic particles, for example).

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.

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.’

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.”

 

[ecco]

The article also clearly states, "Between 2010–2014, on average, 56 million induced . . . abortions occurred worldwide each year."

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preventing-unsafe-abortion
As I said ...
The article at your link does not say "56,000,000 babies are murdered by their mothers annually".

Why would you make such a false assertion?

Do you think we are all so gullible that we believe anything you post?



Here are some real quotes from the article.
Abortions are safe if they are done with a method recommended by WHO
Women, including adolescents, with unwanted pregnancies, often resort to unsafe abortion when they cannot access safe abortion. Barriers to accessing safe abortion include:

• restrictive laws
• poor availability of services
• high cost
• stigma
• conscientious objection of health-care providers and

Most of these barriers are the result of religious lobbying and religious pressure from people who believe like you do.

Apologies for not connecting the dots for you earlier, I presumed you had a working conscience.

It's interesting that someone who talks about conscience and right and wrong has no qualms about posting misleading comments.

 

[ecco]

(Omniscient God knew they would kept himself from knowing their futures out of deference to their Free Will.)

When did god tell you He intentionally kept himself in the dark?

Are you asking because you honestly want to learn or is this an endeavor to keep your echo chamber going?

I'm asking because I want to see if you can justify your comments. So far you haven't done very well. So, I'll ask again...
When did god tell you He intentionally kept himself in the dark?

 

[ecco]

You're not making any sense. Whom has Jehovah God ever murdered?

Almost everyone and almost everything.

See my signature?

. . . you've got your work cut out for your . . .

It was real easy to respond to your question.
Max: Whom has Jehovah God ever murdered?
ecco: Almost everyone and almost everything.

If you're asking, by way of directing me to your signature, for the evidence for my response, I hereby submit: The Book of Genesis.

Of course, if you don't believe what is written in Genesis then I guess you won't see that as evidence.