Science is a false God

[Maximilian]

Cool - predicting the slaughter of infants and fetuses via Jehovah.

Why should God tolerate evil?

 

[tas8831]

But you do need to know enough and, archaeologically speaking, the available record of the ancient past just isn't. For instance, at one time scholars doubted the existence of Assyrian King Sargon, mentioned at Isaiah 20:1. However, in the 1840’s, archaeologists began unearthing the palace of this king. Now, Sargon is one of the best-known Assyrian kings.


Critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who ordered Jesus’ death. (Matthew 27:1, 22-24) But in 1961 a stone bearing Pilate’s name and rank was discovered near the city of Caesarea in Israel.


Before 1993, there was no extra-biblical evidence to support the historicity of David, the brave young shepherd who later became king of Israel. That year, however, archaeologists uncovered in northern Israel a basalt stone, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words “House of David” and “king of Israel.”


Until recently, many scholars doubted the accuracy of the Bible’s account of the nation of Edom battling with Israel in the time of David. (2 Samuel 8:13, 14) Edom, they argued, was a simple pastoral society at the time and did not become sufficiently organized or have the might to threaten Israel until much later. However, recent excavations indicate that “Edom was a complex society centuries earlier [than previously thought], as reflected in the Bible,” states an article in the journal Biblical Archaeology Review.


There were many rulers on the world stage during the 16 centuries that the Bible was being written. When the Bible refers to a ruler, it always uses the proper title. For example, it correctly refers to Herod Antipas as “district ruler” and Gallio as “proconsul.” (Luke 3:1; Acts 18:12) Ezra 5:6 refers to Tattenai, the governor of the Persian province “beyond the River,” the Euphrates River. A coin produced in the fourth century B.C.E. contains a similar description, identifying the Persian governor Mazaeus as ruler of the province “Beyond the River.”


Regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible, the October 25, 1999, issue of U.S.News & World Report said: “In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New Testaments— corroborating key portions of the stories of Israel’s patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus.” While faith in the Bible does not hinge on archaeological discoveries, such historical accuracy is what you would expect of a book inspired by God.

Are you Jo Polanco?
Because Jo Polanco wrote those exact words here.

Plagiarism tells me that you have no answer of your own.

Plagiarism is dishonest.

I have caught 5 or 6 Christian creationists plagiarizing on this forum alone.

What is it about the conservative Christian belief system that drives them to such transparent dishonesty?

 

[Maximilian]

I think perhaps you misunderstand. We know QM is non-causal because it is a man-made model and so we know how it is constructed and what that implies.

Nobody, however, is saying we know the model is definitively right or complete. That would be a quite different claim. A scientifically literate person would not make such a claim, since no theory in science can be proved true.

What is being said is that we can model the world on the basis of theories that are non-causal and they work. So there is no reason, from the point of view of science, to invoke further causes, at this point. Some people may want to do so for aesthetic reasons, but that is another matter.

Which is meaningful because, as is well documented, Science is not only omniscient but infallible too . . .

 

[tas8831]

Why should God tolerate evil?

Right - fetuses are evil. So you should support abortion or be against Jehovah. Why do you hate Jehovah?

And why are you a plagiarist?

 

[Maximilian]

I don't/ But I have enough to show it fails in *this* universe, which is enough to destroy the 'first cause' argument. Like I said, it also has other severe problems.

So it is possible God created some other universe?

 

[sooda]

King Sargon settled Arabs of defeated desert tribes in the province of Samaria, the former kingdom of Israel, in 716 BCE.

2 Kings

King James Bible 17:24

And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.

In the next verse ….

2 Kings 17:25 New King James Version (NKJV)
25 And it was so, at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they did not fear the Lord; therefore the Lord sent lions among them, which killed some of them.

 

[Polymath257]

Done!

Already replied to.

 

[Polymath257]

Why should God tolerate evil?

I don't know. Why does he?

Seems like good evidence for the non-existence of a deity that cares about eliminating evil.

 

[Polymath257]

Which is meaningful because, as is well documented, Science is not only omniscient but infallible too . . .

It needs to be neither to know enough to eliminate falsehoods. That is the point. It is possible to *test* ideas and, at least, eliminate those that fail to agree with observations.

 

[Polymath257]

So it is possible God created some other universe?

I'm not even sure what that means. Is it possible to create universes? I don't know. Is anyone who creates universes appropriately described as a God? I don't know. What are the physical laws of other universes? I don't know.

Is there even any way to make observational sense of this question? Not that I can see.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Prove it.

You want proof that children are innocent? For real?

 

[exchemist]

Which is meaningful because, as is well documented, Science is not only omniscient but infallible too . . .

What? My post says exactly the opposite. Do you need me to explain it to you? Or do you have a need to erect an absurd strawman version of science, so you can ridicule it?

 

[ecco]

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

Instead of posting links, post the one example you feel is the best. Then we can decide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Imaginary? Based on what conclusive evidence have you determined that Jehovah God does not nor cannot exist?

Based on the same evidence about fairies. You keep misstating peoples beliefs in an attempt to avoid the obvious. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that your god exists. It is not the duty of others to prove that he did not.

Though if you gave enough details about your version of god it could be possible to "prove" that he does not exist.

 

[Shantanu]

Though if you gave enough details about your version of god it could be possible to "prove" that he does not exist.

What kind of details do you require about my version of God that would prove His existence, and would that have to be beyond reasonable doubt or more concrete than that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thus establishing that Science is not only omniscient but infallible which certainly justifies your undying reverence for it . . .

Wow! The master of the strawman argument!

 

[Maximilian]

You want proof that children are innocent? For real?

If you can't prove it why should I believe you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What kind of details do you require about my version of God that would prove His existence, and would that have to be beyond reasonable doubt or more concrete than that?

I don't know enough about your version of god to even begin. @Maximilian has already made his version quite clear and if he made some points clear I could then do so. A major one is whether or not his god can lie. If his god can lie then all bets are off. I could not refute it, but then if one's god can lie why would anyone believe any of his claims to start with?

There are versions of god that cannot be refuted. Yours may be one of them. Though the lack of my new car does not bode well for him.

 

[Polymath257]

If you can't prove it why should I believe it?

Says the person who advocates the existence of an unprovable deity and then asks everyone else to prove him wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you can't prove it why should I believe it?

Do you want to reason rationally or irrationally?