Science is a false God

[Subduction Zone]

I've not presented my proclamations but God's because he authored the Bible, not me.

Now you are claiming that your god is either incompetent or dishonest. That does not help your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Done!

Much of the "prophecy" in the Bible appears to be history written as if it were prophecy. That does not help your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You want proof that children are innocent? For real?

Demanding outrageous levels of "proof" by others and not giving any evidence at all for one's own claims is . . . ?

 

[Shantanu]

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.

My version of God is ascertained through truth search by truth accommodation as the technique to be practiced.

 

[ecco]

Because your question is malformed. God doesn't create evil for anyone, only good. It is we who create evil for ourselves when we stray from what is good.

How did the evil fetuses that God slaughtered, create evil for themselves?

 

[ratiocinator]

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. They’re confronted as morally abominable facts -as undeniable acts of evil.

[emphasis added]

You want proof that children are innocent? For real?

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

So this is objective morality, is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My version of God is ascertained through truth search by truth accommodation as the technique to be practiced.

That sounds like a very vague version of god and therefore may not be refutable. Now whether the belief in such a god is rational or not is another discussion.

I am pretty sure that @Maximilian 's version of god cannot lie. That will cause a huge problem for him when all of the observable evidence out there contradicts Genesis which he appears to insist is what actually happened. That directly implies that he also believes that god lies, though he almost certainly does not understand this.

 

[ecco]

Thankfully, humanity's experiment of independence from God is quickly coming to an end and our Creator will restore the world and the planet to its original paradisaical conditions so that all those loyal to him can live forever in true peace and happiness.

We all know that some websites can inflict viruses into the computers that visit them.

I would not visit a website that you link to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did the evil fetuses that God slaughtered, create evil for themselves?

I know his answer! He is going to demand that you prove that they would not be evil when they grew up. Don't worry, I got him rather angry when he was rude to me and appears to have put me on ignore. I asked questions about slavery that he had no answer for. He won't see this post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We all know that some websites can inflict viruses into the computers that visit them.

I would not visit a website that you link to.

You are right. Best to stick to Pornhub.

 

[ecco]

Echo chamber it is . . .

Evasion it is...

 

[Polymath257]

You are right. Best to stick to Pornhub.

I prefer to use a throw-away virtual machine for risky sites.

 

[Maximilian]

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?

Rather than delusions of omniscience, then, shouldn’t the reality that the sciences are not unfailing or omniscient bring you to humility as opposed to contemptuousness and openness instead of bigotry?

 

[Shantanu]

That sounds like a very vague version of god and therefore may not be refutable. Now whether the belief in such a god is rational or not is another discussion.

I only use irrefutable procedures to determine reality.

 

[ecco]

I wonder where the "hill of the Foreskins" is. I should like to visit it one day with the family.

There is a gift shop at the foot of the hill that sells mummified foreskins.

 

[Maximilian]

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.

The work of Science is not to say "I do not know". The work of the scientist is to propose possible theories that explain observed phenomena. It is, after all, omniscient and infallible...

 

[Polymath257]

Rather than delusions of omniscience, then, shouldn’t the reality that the sciences are not unfailing or omniscient bring you to humility as opposed to contemptuousness and openness instead of bigotry?

It does bring humility on those things we do not know, but contempt for those who promote things that have been shown to be wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

The work of Science is not to say "I do not know". The work of the scientist is to propose possible theories that explain observed phenomena. It is, after all, omniscient and infallible...

Huh? And since we have no observational evidence for other universes, the best we can say at this point is 'We do not know'.

And NOBODY claims science is either omniscient or infallible. But it does correct its mistakes and eliminates falsehoods along the way, so progress is made.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The work of Science is not to say "I do not know". The work of the scientist is to propose possible theories that explain observed phenomena. It is, after all, omniscient and infallible...

And back to the strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? And since we have no observational evidence for other universes, the best we can say at this point is 'We do not know'.

And NOBODY claims science is either omniscient or infallible. But it does correct its mistakes and eliminates falsehoods along the way, so progress is made.

I think that he is misinterpreting what science tells us. Ideas can be shown to be wrong when their model fails. That creationists will not even make a testable model shouts volumes. He appears to be that to refute his model, even though it is a very informal one, would take infinite knowledge when only a small amount is needed to find self contradictions in it. Self contradictions causes a model to fail too.