Science is a false God

[We Never Know]

You mean you actually want God interfering in all aspects of your life? I was under the impression you were perfectly fine going at it all on your lonesome . . .

You miss took my post. Evil only exist because God created it, which also means he can stop it. Why does he allow soneone, say like Hitler to grow up become in power, start wars, murder millions in genocides when he should know that Hitler would grow up and do those things?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

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 they were, innocent children.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When was Bohmian Mechanics refuted?

I think that you have that backwards. When has it ever been confirmed? What answers doe Bohmian Mechanics give us that other models cannot? And if it fails where relativity succeeds then it is a refuted concept. That seems to be what was implied by @Polymath257 .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here, let me fix your Strawman-

"Oh sure....let's consider the young virgin girl woman who's just witnessed her entire family be slaughtered by Israeli soldiers Jehovah God. The soldiers spare her because they A soldier finds her to be attractive. They take He invites her back to their village his home, she shaves her head, and lock her in a room lives with him for 30 days. Then she is expected to marry After she marries him he can ,have sex with her ,and bear the children of one of the soldiers for him they can raise a family together."

Glad I could help


And if you really believe no woman would never willingly agree to be a part of this study Joshua 6:17, 23, 25 along with Matthew 1:5.

You did not correct a straw man. You made one.

Is your motto 'If at first you don't succeed, lie lie again?'

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, not any more. He's just blatantly advocating and justifying genocide, while simultaneously claiming to be on the side of divine morality.

It's friggin' disgusting no matter how you slice it.

It is disgusting. By any standard.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Our Creator existed long before he created our material universe. (Genesis 1:1)

Obviously, then, God exists in a reality distinct from ours and beyond our woefully limited comprehension.

An how do you know this?
What objective evidence do you have that your god is real?

You can do it, don't fail me now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

“I, Jehovah, am your God,
The One teaching you to benefit yourself,

You do not seem to have learned anything but hatred.

The One guiding you in the way you should walk.

I do not think that God wants you to treat people like dirt. Why do you do it here?

If only you would pay attention to my commandments!

Try paying attention to the one about false witness.

Then your peace would become just like a river

This explains why you do not seem to be at peace or show any empathy to others.

And your righteousness like the waves of the sea." -Isaiah 48:17, 18

Clearly, you have mistaken righteousness for self-rigtheousness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is disgusting. By any standard.

When one tries to defend a psychopathic version of God one begins to look like a psychopath.

 

[Audie]

When one tries to defend a psychopathic version of God one begins to look like a psychopath.

What difference is there between how one acts,
and, what he is?

 

[Polymath257]

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Yes. All of physics. Causality always happens in the forward light cone. That limits it to within the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

When was Bohmian Mechanics refuted?

Well, for the classical theory, it gives *exactly* the same predictions as ordinary quantum mechanics (you realized that, right?). But, the problem is that it doesn't work with relativistic situations. In particular, it is fails when it comes to anti-matter and pair production (which we know exist because of observations at particle accelerators). pretty much no physicist in the last 50 years has considered it worthwhile because of that.

Philosophers seem to like it because it is 'deterministic', but since it isn't relativistic it simply isn't a realistic theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What difference is there between how one acts,
and, what he is?

A person may have a psychopathic version of God and yet not act as a psychopath oneself. Most people are far more moral than their gods are.

 

[We Never Know]

What difference is there between how one acts,
and, what he is?

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Maximilian]

Yes. All of physics. Causality always happens in the forward light cone. That limits it to within the universe.

And how do you know for a fact that causality doesn't apply in other universes?

 

[Polymath257]

Would such prophecies undermine your Atheism or no?

Well, let's give an example of something that would *start* to be interesting regarding prophesy.

Suppose a book that is well-established (say, by carbon dating of early texts) to be written before 1200 AD makes a prediction that in July of 1969 a man would first walk on the moon and that the name of the spacecraft would be Apollo. That would serve to at least show that whoever made that prediction had some accurate information. That would make me question what we know of the laws of physics and take seriously some aspects of prophesy making. The information was specific and accurate and unknowable to the original person.

But that alone would NOT be evidence for a deity, per se. Even if the person *said* that Zeus told them this information, I might be suspicious that they did not understand the *real* origin of the information. Clearly, some source of accurate information was available and that aspect should be thoroughly investigated, but that alone would NOT make me believe in a deity without more information and corroboration.

Now, if a *pattern* of such predictions, made only by those believing in a certain religion and having accuracy on the level of the above, while similar predictions made by all others fail to be accurate, *then* I might believe what those making the predictions have to say.

Now, what *would* make me believe in a deity would be something truly cosmic in scale (say, in the background radiation) that clearly gives a 'message' that can on;ly be interpreted as a 'signature' for a designer.

But you have previously said nothing like this is likely.

 

[Polymath257]

And how do you know for a fact that causality doesn't apply in other universes?

if you go a multiverse theory then it would, but that is simply replacing 'the universe' with 'the multiverse' for this discussion.

But a multiverse would NOT be a supernatural in any case.

 

[We Never Know]

What difference is there between how one acts,
and, what he is?

Character is shown through actions, not words.

 

[We Never Know]

if you go a multiverse theory then it would, but that is simply replacing 'the universe' with 'the multiverse' for this discussion.

But a multiverse would NOT be a supernatural in any case.

Agreed but a multi-universe would shatter much of what we think we know.

 

[Polymath257]

Our Creator existed long before he created our material universe. (Genesis 1:1)

Obviously, then, God exists in a reality distinct from ours and beyond our woefully limited comprehension.

Hmm...Genesis doens't say anything about how long God existed before the creation of the Earth. It also tells of God hovering about the waters of the deep and bringing forth dry land. That is hardly a good description of the formation of the *universe*. At most, it is a failed description of the formation of something very local to the Earth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What difference is there between how one acts,
and, what he is?

I see no difference.