40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

[Compassionist]

Please see

[Compassionist]

I disagree with you. There is no difference between true and scientifically true. If you behead humans, they die. This is true. There is no need to add the word 'scientifically' before the word 'true'.

It’s scientifically true that if you behead humans, they die. It’s historically true (not scientifically true) that King Charles I was beheaded. Science cannot give us that King Charles I was beheaded and, rightfully so, because that isn’t what science is. In other words, there are truths outside of science. The Biblical texts make claims about some of those kinds of truths; they aren’t scientific treatises.

Making all beings all-knowing and all-powerful is not the same as programming them the way we program robots.

I didn’t say it was. Once again, I said the ‘robot’ analogy came from you saying “That way we would always make perfect choices.” My comment had nothing to do with the part of you talking about being all-knowing and all-powerful.

Also, all-knowing and all-powerful beings are not devoid of love.

I didn’t say they were. I agree with you here. I said ‘robots,’ i.e., those without free will, are devoid of love. Where is my reasoning wrong or why do you think those without free will can love?

My definition of free will: A will that is free from all constraints and is not determined by any variables e.g. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

…

My definition of constrained will: A will that is constrained and is determined by variables e.g. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

As I said recently in another thread, there is a third type of will (whatever name you would want to give it) that you keep brushing off. It is limited by certain things, but is not determined by any of them. Many philosophers call this limited free will, but we can name it whatever you want. If you have reasons to reject this as a possible option, then offer it.

The problem with your definition is that no organism acts independently of its genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. You can prove me wrong by being able to live without air, water, and food using your alleged free will. Tardigrades can do it but we can't because we don't have their genes.

(Limited) free will does not say an organism acts independently of its genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. It says one’s choices are limited in certain ways by these, but that there are still options open to them within those limitations.

I understand the difference between scientific truth and historic truth. I agree that the beheading of the King Charles I on 30th January 1649 is a historic truth but not a scientific truth. There are two creation accounts in Genesis. These two accounts are neither scientific nor historic truths. Is there any other kind of truth?

Those without free will can and do love. For example, I lack free will, but I still love. As do lots of other organisms. Even the meerkat alpha mum loves her own babies while having no problem with murdering the babies of other meerkats.

Limited free will is just semantic acrobatics. Either organisms have free will or organisms do not have free will. Our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Therefore, we do not have free will.

I imagine that in a reality where all living things are all-knowing and all-powerful, we could each own an infinite number of universes. There is no suffering, injustice, or death. We know and understand everyone and everything and always know what the right thing to do is and always do the right thing. We all experience an infinite quality of life and an infinite standard of living for an infinite length of time.

If God is real and good, then he would have made all living things all-knowing and all-powerful. That way we could all live and love forever. Since we are not all-knowing and all-powerful, God is not real and good.

It's possible that God is real and evil. It's also possible that God is imaginary and evil. I think God is imaginary and evil.

[The Tanager]

I understand the difference between scientific truth and historic truth. I agree that the beheading of the King Charles I on 30th January 1649 is a historic truth but not a scientific truth. There are two creation accounts in Genesis. These two accounts are neither scientific nor historic truths. Is there any other kind of truth?

Logical truth, metaphysical truth, definitional truth, mathematical truth, probably others. Either atheism or theism is true (a logical truth). If atheism is true, this is a metaphysical truth. If theism is true, this is a metaphysical truth. Your burden is to show that the two creation accounts in Genesis make scientific truth claims rather than metaphysical truth claims.

Those without free will can and do love. For example, I lack free will, but I still love. As do lots of other organisms. Even the meerkat alpha mum loves her own babies while having no problem with murdering the babies of other meerkats.

Why is the meerkat alpha mom’s action rightly called ‘love’? If the meerkat was forced to care for her own babies when she didn’t want to, would it still be called “loving”?

Limited free will is just semantic acrobatics. Either organisms have free will or organisms do not have free will. Our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Therefore, we do not have free will.

Do you have any rational support for it just being semantics? Do you have any rational support for saying the only two options are your “free will” and “constrained will”? So far you are just asserting this is the case.

[Compassionist]

I understand the difference between scientific truth and historic truth. I agree that the beheading of the King Charles I on 30th January 1649 is a historic truth but not a scientific truth. There are two creation accounts in Genesis. These two accounts are neither scientific nor historic truths. Is there any other kind of truth?

Logical truth, metaphysical truth, definitional truth, mathematical truth, probably others. Either atheism or theism is true (a logical truth). If atheism is true, this is a metaphysical truth. If theism is true, this is a metaphysical truth. Your burden is to show that the two creation accounts in Genesis make scientific truth claims rather than metaphysical truth claims.

Those without free will can and do love. For example, I lack free will, but I still love. As do lots of other organisms. Even the meerkat alpha mum loves her own babies while having no problem with murdering the babies of other meerkats.

Why is the meerkat alpha mom’s action rightly called ‘love’? If the meerkat was forced to care for her own babies when she didn’t want to, would it still be called “loving”?

Limited free will is just semantic acrobatics. Either organisms have free will or organisms do not have free will. Our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Therefore, we do not have free will.

Do you have any rational support for it just being semantics? Do you have any rational support for saying the only two options are your “free will” and “constrained will”? So far you are just asserting this is the case.

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth Metaphysical truth is not actually truth. Metaphysics relies on beliefs that cannot be proven e.g. Gods exist or Gods don't exist.

Love is something many biological organisms experience due to their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. It facilitates reproduction and child-rearing.

My definitions of free will and constrained will are based on my observations. You could argue that I don't exist and my observations don't exist and I would not be able to prove to you that I exist and that my observations exist. From your point of view, I could be a simulation or an illusion or a hallucination or a dream or a philosophical zombie. You can't prove that I actually exist. Just as I can't prove that you actually exist.

[The Tanager]

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth Metaphysical truth is not actually truth. Metaphysics relies on beliefs that cannot be proven e.g. Gods exist or Gods don't exist.

What in that article do you think proves metaphysical truth isn’t actually truth? The bolded claim itself is a metaphysical claim. The article is part of a series on epistemology, which is about the theory of knowledge and truth. Epistemology is a branch within metaphysics. Your claim here is logically self-defeating. Science even relies on metaphysics, as Nietzsche even sees in a quote in that article.

Can you carry the burden of showing the two creation accounts in Genesis (as well as any other passages in the video you linked to) make scientific truth claims rather than metaphysical truth claims.

Love is something many biological organisms experience due to their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. It facilitates reproduction and child-rearing.

How does this offer support that the meerkat alpha mom’s child-rearing is rightly called love? It seems like you are just re-asserting that it is rightly called love.

My definitions of free will and constrained will are based on my observations. You could argue that I don't exist and my observations don't exist and I would not be able to prove to you that I exist and that my observations exist. From your point of view, I could be a simulation or an illusion or a hallucination or a dream or a philosophical zombie. You can't prove that I actually exist. Just as I can't prove that you actually exist.

I wouldn’t argue down that route. I would say definitions aren’t based on one person’s observations and that the vast philosophical tradition is against you. The whole free will vs. determinism debate is not between the two options you share as almost no one (if anyone) believes in the kind of free will as you have defined it. The free will debate simply wouldn’t have arisen if only your two options were the case.

[Compassionist]

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth Metaphysical truth is not actually truth. Metaphysics relies on beliefs that cannot be proven e.g. Gods exist or Gods don't exist.

What in that article do you think proves metaphysical truth isn’t actually truth? The bolded claim itself is a metaphysical claim. The article is part of a series on epistemology, which is about the theory of knowledge and truth. Epistemology is a branch within metaphysics. Your claim here is logically self-defeating. Science even relies on metaphysics, as Nietzsche even sees in a quote in that article.

Can you carry the burden of showing the two creation accounts in Genesis (as well as any other passages in the video you linked to) make scientific truth claims rather than metaphysical truth claims.

Love is something many biological organisms experience due to their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. It facilitates reproduction and child-rearing.

How does this offer support that the meerkat alpha mom’s child-rearing is rightly called love? It seems like you are just re-asserting that it is rightly called love.

My definitions of free will and constrained will are based on my observations. You could argue that I don't exist and my observations don't exist and I would not be able to prove to you that I exist and that my observations exist. From your point of view, I could be a simulation or an illusion or a hallucination or a dream or a philosophical zombie. You can't prove that I actually exist. Just as I can't prove that you actually exist.

I wouldn’t argue down that route. I would say definitions aren’t based on one person’s observations and that the vast philosophical tradition is against you. The whole free will vs. determinism debate is not between the two options you share as almost no one (if anyone) believes in the kind of free will as you have defined it. The free will debate simply wouldn’t have arisen if only your two options were the case.

How can we know what is real, and what is not real? Epistemology is a conundrum because there are lots of hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. Simulation Hypothesis (the perceived world is simulated), Illusion Hypothesis (our perceptions are illusions), Philosophical Zombie Hypothesis (beings that appear sentient are not actually sentient), Gods Hypothesis (Gods exist and are all-knowing and all-powerful), Karma Hypothesis (sentient beings are rewarded and punished according to their Karma), Reincarnation Hypothesis (immortal souls exist and reincarnate in different bodies), Resurrection Hypothesis (immortal souls exist and are resurrected after death), Heaven and Hell Hypothesis (Heaven and Hell exist and immortal souls go there depending on their beliefs and/or actions), Undetectable Beings Hypothesis (beings that can't be detected exist e.g. angels, demons, aliens, time-travellers, ghosts, fairies, leprechauns), etc. How can we know what is true and what is false?

Alpha meerkat mums look after their own babies while murdering the babies of other meerkats. This is an observed behaviour. You can call this love for own babies and hate for the babies of others.

I am only 50% certain that the world I perceive through my senses is actually real. I am aware that different philosophers have different definitions for free will. I really don't care if anyone else agrees with my definitions. My definitions arose out of my observations. If you want to reject my definitions, that's fine by me. I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right. I am not even convinced you exist.

[The Tanager]

How can we know what is real, and what is not real? Epistemology is a conundrum because there are lots of hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. Simulation Hypothesis (the perceived world is simulated), Illusion Hypothesis (our perceptions are illusions), Philosophical Zombie Hypothesis (beings that appear sentient are not actually sentient), Gods Hypothesis (Gods exist and are all-knowing and all-powerful), Karma Hypothesis (sentient beings are rewarded and punished according to their Karma), Reincarnation Hypothesis (immortal souls exist and reincarnate in different bodies), Resurrection Hypothesis (immortal souls exist and are resurrected after death), Heaven and Hell Hypothesis (Heaven and Hell exist and immortal souls go there depending on their beliefs and/or actions), Undetectable Beings Hypothesis (beings that can't be detected exist e.g. angels, demons, aliens, time-travellers, ghosts, fairies, leprechauns), etc. How can we know what is true and what is false?

If you mean ‘know’ in a 100% certain way, then I agree. But if that is what you mean, then why hold that as the standard? The few things we could know would be definitions, pure mathematics, and I’m not sure if I’m missing anything else.

If that is not what you mean, then there are reasons to accept some of these kinds of theories over others. It won’t be 100% certain, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be the most reasonable position to tentatively hold.

Alpha meerkat mums look after their own babies while murdering the babies of other meerkats. This is an observed behaviour. You can call this love for own babies and hate for the babies of others.

If person A forced person B to look after person A’s babies, against their will, that would be an observed behavior. Would this be rightly called “love for person A’s babies”?

I am aware that different philosophers have different definitions for free will. I really don't care if anyone else agrees with my definitions. My definitions arose out of my observations. If you want to reject my definitions, that's fine by me. I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right.

You should care if your definitions don’t fully address the issue being discussed because, without that, the conclusions you are drawing are not reasonable and you seem like you want to have reasonable beliefs.

[Compassionist]

How can we know what is real, and what is not real? Epistemology is a conundrum because there are lots of hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. Simulation Hypothesis (the perceived world is simulated), Illusion Hypothesis (our perceptions are illusions), Philosophical Zombie Hypothesis (beings that appear sentient are not actually sentient), Gods Hypothesis (Gods exist and are all-knowing and all-powerful), Karma Hypothesis (sentient beings are rewarded and punished according to their Karma), Reincarnation Hypothesis (immortal souls exist and reincarnate in different bodies), Resurrection Hypothesis (immortal souls exist and are resurrected after death), Heaven and Hell Hypothesis (Heaven and Hell exist and immortal souls go there depending on their beliefs and/or actions), Undetectable Beings Hypothesis (beings that can't be detected exist e.g. angels, demons, aliens, time-travellers, ghosts, fairies, leprechauns), etc. How can we know what is true and what is false?

If you mean ‘know’ in a 100% certain way, then I agree. But if that is what you mean, then why hold that as the standard? The few things we could know would be definitions, pure mathematics, and I’m not sure if I’m missing anything else.

If that is not what you mean, then there are reasons to accept some of these kinds of theories over others. It won’t be 100% certain, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be the most reasonable position to tentatively hold.

Alpha meerkat mums look after their own babies while murdering the babies of other meerkats. This is an observed behaviour. You can call this love for own babies and hate for the babies of others.

If person A forced person B to look after person A’s babies, against their will, that would be an observed behavior. Would this be rightly called “love for person A’s babies”?

I am aware that different philosophers have different definitions for free will. I really don't care if anyone else agrees with my definitions. My definitions arose out of my observations. If you want to reject my definitions, that's fine by me. I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right.

You should care if your definitions don’t fully address the issue being discussed because, without that, the conclusions you are drawing are not reasonable and you seem like you want to have reasonable beliefs.

There are only three things I am 100% certain about:
1. I am a sentient being.
2. I can't do an infinite number of things even though I want to do them desperately e.g. make all living things forever happy, go back in time and prevent all suffering, injustice and deaths, make all living things all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, etc.
3. I am constantly doing things I don't want to do e.g. sleeping, dreaming, aging, breathing, etc.

There is one thing I am 50% certain about:
1. The reality I perceive through my senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin) is actually real as opposed to being a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream. This includes having a body, the existence of the universe, the existence of other organisms, etc.

If person A forced person B to look after person A's babies against their will, the babies should not be the target of hate. The babies are not at fault here. The babies should be loved by person B because the babies are innocent.

I think my definitions fully address the issues. You may think otherwise but I am not convinced by your thoughts.

[The Tanager]

There are only three things I am 100% certain about:

Do you think 100% certain should be the standard? Why or why not?

If person A forced person B to look after person A's babies against their will, the babies should not be the target of hate. The babies are not at fault here. The babies should be loved by person B because the babies are innocent.

But what if person B does feel hate towards those babies? Are their actions alone enough to say that you can call their actions “love for Person A’s babies”?

I think my definitions fully address the issues. You may think otherwise but I am not convinced by your thoughts.

I do think otherwise, but I want to consider the reasons to change my mind. If your definitions fully address this issue, then you would have reasons to rule out what I called “limited free will”. What are they?

[Compassionist]

There are only three things I am 100% certain about:

Do you think 100% certain should be the standard? Why or why not?

If person A forced person B to look after person A's babies against their will, the babies should not be the target of hate. The babies are not at fault here. The babies should be loved by person B because the babies are innocent.

But what if person B does feel hate towards those babies? Are their actions alone enough to say that you can call their actions “love for Person A’s babies”?

I think my definitions fully address the issues. You may think otherwise but I am not convinced by your thoughts.

I do think otherwise, but I want to consider the reasons to change my mind. If your definitions fully address this issue, then you would have reasons to rule out what I called “limited free will”. What are they?

100% is the standard because there can be nothing higher than 100%.

It would be illogical to hate the babies. The babies are not forcing the person to look after them.

Limited free will does not exist. That's why I ruled it out.

[The Tanager]

100% is the standard because there can be nothing higher than 100%.

Okay, so why don’t you just think about dictionaries and pure mathematics?

It would be illogical to hate the babies. The babies are not forcing the person to look after them.

Okay, they are illogical. Are their actions alone enough to say that you can say they have “love for Person A’s babies”?

Limited free will does not exist. That's why I ruled it out.

So, it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist. You think “fully addressing the issue” doesn’t include having rational reasons for specific parts of your view on the issue? Pure assumption on certain parts are "fully addressing the issue"?