40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #1

Post by Compassionist »

Please see

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #11

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 1:03 pm
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:57 amEither the Bible is true or it is false. Either the Bible is the words of God or it is the words of people. If the Bible was true, it would have matched what we know using the scientific method. Since it doesn't, I conclude that it is false. If an all-knowing and all-powerful being authored the Bible, we would find it to be truthful from the first verse to the last. Since the Bible is full of inaccuracies and contradictions, I conclude that an all-knowing and all-powerful God did not author it.

The morality offered in the Bible is hypocritical and unjust. God claims to be love yet God's words and actions are the opposite of love.
So, a text has to address every single piece of knowledge in order to be true? If that's the case, then every text is false. Your conclusions rely on the Bible (in part) being a scientific treatise. The Bible is not a scientific treatise. You may disagree, but you haven't shown support for treating it as a scientific treatise. Therefore, your conclusions is unsupported and unreasonable.

As far as judging the morality of the Bible to be unjust and unloving, on what objective basis do you do that?
That's not what I said. If the Bible is authored by an all-knowing and all-powerful God then all its verses should be true. If the verses are true, then they should match what we discover using the scientific method. The same applies to the Quran, the Vedas, and all the other allegedly divinely authored books.

God contradicts himself in the Bible. He claims to be Love, yet he evicted all organisms from Heaven. If he was and is Love, he would have made all organisms forever happy.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #12

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 2:02 pmThat's not what I said. If the Bible is authored by an all-knowing and all-powerful God then all its verses should be true. If the verses are true, then they should match what we discover using the scientific method.
They should be true in what they are claiming to teach. You haven’t shown they are scientific treatises, focused on teaching scientific truths. Without showing that your conclusion is unsupported and unreasonable.
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 2:02 pmGod contradicts himself in the Bible. He claims to be Love, yet he evicted all organisms from Heaven.
It’s more loving to allow humans to live forever with their ability and willingness to follow their own view of good and evil (to the damage of others) than to evict them from the tree of life, while still pursuing them in a loving relationship?
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 2:02 pmIf he was and is Love, he would have made all organisms forever happy.
Happiness according to what? We often come to see what we thought would make us happy doesn’t. Why not think God, an omniscient being, would know what would make us the most happy and offers that to us?

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #13

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 8:33 pm
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 2:02 pmThat's not what I said. If the Bible is authored by an all-knowing and all-powerful God then all its verses should be true. If the verses are true, then they should match what we discover using the scientific method.
They should be true in what they are claiming to teach. You haven’t shown they are scientific treatises, focused on teaching scientific truths. Without showing that your conclusion is unsupported and unreasonable.
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 2:02 pmGod contradicts himself in the Bible. He claims to be Love, yet he evicted all organisms from Heaven.
It’s more loving to allow humans to live forever with their ability and willingness to follow their own view of good and evil (to the damage of others) than to evict them from the tree of life, while still pursuing them in a loving relationship?
Compassionist wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 2:02 pmIf he was and is Love, he would have made all organisms forever happy.
Happiness according to what? We often come to see what we thought would make us happy doesn’t. Why not think God, an omniscient being, would know what would make us the most happy and offers that to us?
The Bible lists events e.g. the order in which God allegedly created non-living and living things. This order should match what we have discovered through the scientific method but it does not. There are many more inaccuracies between what the Bible claims to be true and what is actually true.

It would have been most loving of God if he had made all living things all-knowing and all-powerful. That way we would always make perfect choices and be forever happy. God failed to do this. 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth are already extinct. The world is full of suffering, injustice, and death. If God is real then it is 100% God's fault.

I think that the Biblical God is imaginary and evil. I think this because of all the inaccuracies in the Bible and all the atrocities committed by God and his followers in the Bible. First, you need to prove that God is real. Then you need to prove that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Then you need to prove that the Bible is God's word. Then you need to prove that the Bible is true. Then you need to prove that God is good.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #14

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:27 amThe Bible lists events e.g. the order in which God allegedly created non-living and living things. This order should match what we have discovered through the scientific method but it does not. There are many more inaccuracies between what the Bible claims to be true and what is actually true.
Prove that the Genesis account is meant to be taken as a scientific statement and you have something there. What’s your reasoning?
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:27 amIt would have been most loving of God if he had made all living things all-knowing and all-powerful. That way we would always make perfect choices and be forever happy. God failed to do this.
Why is creating all-knowing and all-powerful robots more loving than creating beings with free will?
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:27 am99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth are already extinct. The world is full of suffering, injustice, and death. If God is real then it is 100% God's fault.
It is 100% God’s fault that the world is full of free will agents who necessarily can act unjustly to the damage of others. But why is that worse than creating robots who are morally perfect? Why is forced moral perfection better than having the possibility and reality of loving beings?

It is 100% God’s fault that beings can suffer and die. But why is that evil? I agree it sounds bad on the surface, but sometimes suffering leads to greater joy. It’s why I don’t just worry about my kids’ self-perceived path to happiness, but instead allow them to suffer to reach a better way of life, forming their character into something that can truly benefit themselves and others.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:27 amI think that the Biblical God is imaginary and evil. I think this because of all the inaccuracies in the Bible and all the atrocities committed by God and his followers in the Bible. First, you need to prove that God is real. Then you need to prove that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Then you need to prove that the Bible is God's word. Then you need to prove that the Bible is true. Then you need to prove that God is good.
I agree that I have such burdens generally speaking, but that isn’t this thread. I would gladly have that conversation with you any time. In this thread you’ve made a claim via that video and you have the burden to show that the Bible is making scientific claims.

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #15

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 7:54 am
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:27 amThe Bible lists events e.g. the order in which God allegedly created non-living and living things. This order should match what we have discovered through the scientific method but it does not. There are many more inaccuracies between what the Bible claims to be true and what is actually true.
Prove that the Genesis account is meant to be taken as a scientific statement and you have something there. What’s your reasoning?
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:27 amIt would have been most loving of God if he had made all living things all-knowing and all-powerful. That way we would always make perfect choices and be forever happy. God failed to do this.
Why is creating all-knowing and all-powerful robots more loving than creating beings with free will?
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:27 am99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth are already extinct. The world is full of suffering, injustice, and death. If God is real then it is 100% God's fault.
It is 100% God’s fault that the world is full of free will agents who necessarily can act unjustly to the damage of others. But why is that worse than creating robots who are morally perfect? Why is forced moral perfection better than having the possibility and reality of loving beings?

It is 100% God’s fault that beings can suffer and die. But why is that evil? I agree it sounds bad on the surface, but sometimes suffering leads to greater joy. It’s why I don’t just worry about my kids’ self-perceived path to happiness, but instead allow them to suffer to reach a better way of life, forming their character into something that can truly benefit themselves and others.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:27 amI think that the Biblical God is imaginary and evil. I think this because of all the inaccuracies in the Bible and all the atrocities committed by God and his followers in the Bible. First, you need to prove that God is real. Then you need to prove that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Then you need to prove that the Bible is God's word. Then you need to prove that the Bible is true. Then you need to prove that God is good.
I agree that I have such burdens generally speaking, but that isn’t this thread. I would gladly have that conversation with you any time. In this thread you’ve made a claim via that video and you have the burden to show that the Bible is making scientific claims.
The Bible is allegedly God's word https://www.openbible.info/topics/who_wrote_the_bible , therefore, everything in it should be true but everything in the Bible is not true.

I have asked you to do these things: "First, you need to prove that God is real. Then you need to prove that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Then you need to prove that the Bible is God's word. Then you need to prove that the Bible is true. Then you need to prove that God is good." on other threads also. Neither you, nor any other Christian has done what I have asked.

I have told you many times that biological organisms don't have free will. I have even demonstrated our lack of free will. You keep claiming that we have free will. Please prove that biological organisms have free will.

Why would all-knowing and all-powerful beings be robots? Surely, all-knowing and all-powerful beings are the most wise and the most capable due to their omniscience and omnipotence? Can all-knowing and all-powerful beings be harmed by natural disasters? No. Can all-knowing and all-powerful beings become ill or injured? No. Can all-knowing and all-powerful beings be harmed by anyone or anything? No. Therefore, God should have made all living things all-knowing and all-powerful.

If God is real and is all-knowing and all-powerful, then God deserves all the blame for all the suffering, injustice, and deaths. With omnipotence comes omniculpablity. If I were omnipotent, I would also be omniculpable. If you were omnipotent, you would also be omniculpable.
Last edited by Compassionist on Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #16

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:03 amThe Bible is allegedly God's word, therefore, everything in it must be true but science shows that it is false. If the Bible does not want us to take the Genesis account to be true, why is it there?
I didn’t say the Biblical authors don’t want the Genesis account to be taken as true. I said your case relies on showing Genesis is meant to be taken as scientifically true. I don’t . It’s there to speak about God as creator and the purpose God has for humans.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:03 amI have asked you to do these things: "First, you need to prove that God is real. Then you need to prove that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Then you need to prove that the Bible is God's word. Then you need to prove that the Bible is true. Then you need to prove that God is good." on other threads also. Neither you, nor any other Christian has done what I have asked.
Whether I or any other Christian has succeeded in doing such things isn’t dependent on if you changed your mind. And this works for you doing what I’ve asked as well not being dependent on if I change my mind or not. Although, right now, all you’ve done is assert the Bible is making scientific claims without reasons for why one should believe this is actually the case. Why do you think it’s part scientific treatise?
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:03 amI have told you many times that biological organisms don't have free will. I have even demonstrated our lack of free will. You keep claiming that we have free will. Please prove that biological organisms have free will.
You have made the claim that it is more loving for a God to make living things that would always make perfect choices. I have brought up free will in response to your claim. Whether such exists in reality is irrelevant. This is about comparing and judging two scenarios, not about what scenario is true in reality. You have the burden of showing that humans with determined moral perfection (who can’t love) would be better than humans with free will who can love but can damage others.

My burden here (at least at this point) is simply to show why determined moral perfection means an absence of love and why free will necessarily leads to the ability to hurt others. I’ll restate it again below…
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:03 amWhy would all-knowing and all-powerful beings be robots? Surely, all-knowing and all-powerful beings are the most wise and the most capable due to their omniscience and omnipotence? Can all-knowing and all-powerful beings be harmed by natural disasters? No. Can all-knowing and all-powerful beings become ill or injured? No. Can all-knowing and all-powerful beings be harmed by anyone or anything? No. Therefore, God should have made all living things all-knowing and all-powerful.
The ‘robot’ part came from you saying “That way we would always make perfect choices”. If God makes us in a way (whether being all-knowing or all-powerful plays a part or not) where we must always make perfect choices, then we are robots. We would have no freedom to make an imperfect choice.

I think determined moral perfection, in taking away our freedom of choice, takes away our ability to love. Sure, we can act in ways that are good for others, but actual love is more than just that; it’s about wanting and choosing the good for others. If we are forced to “choose” that, then we aren’t really choosing it. Therefore, moral perfection means an absence of love and free will means the ability to make choices that affect others both in good and bad ways.

So then the question becomes which scenario would a loving being choose to create? You are claiming that a loving being would choose a world of moral perfection above all alternatives. Can you rationally support why it’s better than a world with free will (and therefore possibly evil) and love?

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #17

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:53 am
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:03 amThe Bible is allegedly God's word, therefore, everything in it must be true but science shows that it is false. If the Bible does not want us to take the Genesis account to be true, why is it there?
I didn’t say the Biblical authors don’t want the Genesis account to be taken as true. I said your case relies on showing Genesis is meant to be taken as scientifically true. I don’t . It’s there to speak about God as creator and the purpose God has for humans.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:03 amI have asked you to do these things: "First, you need to prove that God is real. Then you need to prove that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Then you need to prove that the Bible is God's word. Then you need to prove that the Bible is true. Then you need to prove that God is good." on other threads also. Neither you, nor any other Christian has done what I have asked.
Whether I or any other Christian has succeeded in doing such things isn’t dependent on if you changed your mind. And this works for you doing what I’ve asked as well not being dependent on if I change my mind or not. Although, right now, all you’ve done is assert the Bible is making scientific claims without reasons for why one should believe this is actually the case. Why do you think it’s part scientific treatise?
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:03 amI have told you many times that biological organisms don't have free will. I have even demonstrated our lack of free will. You keep claiming that we have free will. Please prove that biological organisms have free will.
You have made the claim that it is more loving for a God to make living things that would always make perfect choices. I have brought up free will in response to your claim. Whether such exists in reality is irrelevant. This is about comparing and judging two scenarios, not about what scenario is true in reality. You have the burden of showing that humans with determined moral perfection (who can’t love) would be better than humans with free will who can love but can damage others.

My burden here (at least at this point) is simply to show why determined moral perfection means an absence of love and why free will necessarily leads to the ability to hurt others. I’ll restate it again below…
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:03 amWhy would all-knowing and all-powerful beings be robots? Surely, all-knowing and all-powerful beings are the most wise and the most capable due to their omniscience and omnipotence? Can all-knowing and all-powerful beings be harmed by natural disasters? No. Can all-knowing and all-powerful beings become ill or injured? No. Can all-knowing and all-powerful beings be harmed by anyone or anything? No. Therefore, God should have made all living things all-knowing and all-powerful.
The ‘robot’ part came from you saying “That way we would always make perfect choices”. If God makes us in a way (whether being all-knowing or all-powerful plays a part or not) where we must always make perfect choices, then we are robots. We would have no freedom to make an imperfect choice.

I think determined moral perfection, in taking away our freedom of choice, takes away our ability to love. Sure, we can act in ways that are good for others, but actual love is more than just that; it’s about wanting and choosing the good for others. If we are forced to “choose” that, then we aren’t really choosing it. Therefore, moral perfection means an absence of love and free will means the ability to make choices that affect others both in good and bad ways.

So then the question becomes which scenario would a loving being choose to create? You are claiming that a loving being would choose a world of moral perfection above all alternatives. Can you rationally support why it’s better than a world with free will (and therefore possibly evil) and love?
There is no difference between true and scientifically true. Either something is true or it is false. Please stop doing semantic acrobatics to attempt to get out of the fact that the Bible has lies.

Whether or not we have free will is not irrelevant. The issue of free will is central to the issue of culpability. A being without free will is not culpable for anything. Robots don't make perfect choices. They don't make conscious choices. Robots are not sentient. All they do is follow a computer program written by humans.

Only all-knowing and all-powerful beings have free will and the omniculpability that comes with free will. As we are not all-knowing and all-powerful, we don't have free will and we are not culpable. Our will is determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Why would a loving God make beings that lack free will?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #18

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:12 amThere is no difference between true and scientifically true.
Is this statement true? You obviously think it is. Is this statement scientifically true? Okay, then give the scientific evidence that it is true. You obviously can’t. Therefore, it is irrational to think this statement is true.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:12 amEither something is true or it is false. Please stop doing semantic acrobatics to attempt to get out of the fact that the Bible has lies.
The above is logic, not semantics. So, do you have any logical reasons for claiming that the Biblical authors were making scientific claims? If not, then your case given here to believe the Bible has lies fails.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:12 amRobots don't make perfect choices. They don't make conscious choices. Robots are not sentient. All they do is follow a computer program written by humans.
Robots, since they are programmed, always make perfect choices, i.e., the choices the programmer wanted them to make. You are right that these aren’t really choices. For a God to make beings that always make perfect choices, God would be like this programmer.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:12 amWhether or not we have free will is not irrelevant. The issue of free will is central to the issue of culpability. A being without free will is not culpable for anything.
If this part of the discussion was about whether free will (and therefore moral culpability) exists, then it is relevant. It’s irrelevant when judging which of two ways to set up reality would be better (which is what this part of the discussion is about). That is a purely abstract judgment to make. Why do you think setting up reality with moral perfection and no love is better than setting up reality with love, free will, and the possibility of evil? Make your case.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:12 amOnly all-knowing and all-powerful beings have free will and the omniculpability that comes with free will. As we are not all-knowing and all-powerful, we don't have free will and we are not culpable. Our will is determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Why would a loving God make beings that lack free will?
Okay, so you are contesting the possibility of the alternative I offered. Do you have support for this claim? Why can’t beings that aren’t all-knowing and all-powerful still have the kind of free will that almost everyone who believes in free will claims exists? Free will isn’t the ability to do whatever we want; it’s about having certain moral freedoms within the limitations we have as humans.

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #19

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:37 am
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:12 amThere is no difference between true and scientifically true.
Is this statement true? You obviously think it is. Is this statement scientifically true? Okay, then give the scientific evidence that it is true. You obviously can’t. Therefore, it is irrational to think this statement is true.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:12 amEither something is true or it is false. Please stop doing semantic acrobatics to attempt to get out of the fact that the Bible has lies.
The above is logic, not semantics. So, do you have any logical reasons for claiming that the Biblical authors were making scientific claims? If not, then your case given here to believe the Bible has lies fails.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:12 amRobots don't make perfect choices. They don't make conscious choices. Robots are not sentient. All they do is follow a computer program written by humans.
Robots, since they are programmed, always make perfect choices, i.e., the choices the programmer wanted them to make. You are right that these aren’t really choices. For a God to make beings that always make perfect choices, God would be like this programmer.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:12 amWhether or not we have free will is not irrelevant. The issue of free will is central to the issue of culpability. A being without free will is not culpable for anything.
If this part of the discussion was about whether free will (and therefore moral culpability) exists, then it is relevant. It’s irrelevant when judging which of two ways to set up reality would be better (which is what this part of the discussion is about). That is a purely abstract judgment to make. Why do you think setting up reality with moral perfection and no love is better than setting up reality with love, free will, and the possibility of evil? Make your case.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:12 amOnly all-knowing and all-powerful beings have free will and the omniculpability that comes with free will. As we are not all-knowing and all-powerful, we don't have free will and we are not culpable. Our will is determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Why would a loving God make beings that lack free will?
Okay, so you are contesting the possibility of the alternative I offered. Do you have support for this claim? Why can’t beings that aren’t all-knowing and all-powerful still have the kind of free will that almost everyone who believes in free will claims exists? Free will isn’t the ability to do whatever we want; it’s about having certain moral freedoms within the limitations we have as humans.
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'.

Making all beings all-knowing and all-powerful is not the same as programming them the way we program robots. Also, all-knowing and all-powerful beings are not devoid of love. I love all living things but due to my lack of omnipotence, I am unable to prevent them from suffering and dying. If I were all-knowing and all-powerful, I would still love all living things. I would simply have the additional capability of being able to prevent suffering and injustice and death.

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. Omniscience and omnipotence allow one a will that is free from all constraints and a will that is not determined by any variables. I have never met an entity that was all-knowing and all-powerful. So, the existence of such an entity is hypothetical.

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

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.

My definitions are the most precise definitions I have encountered. If you have more precise definitions, please feel free to prove to me that they are more precise.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #20

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:04 amI 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.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:04 amMaking 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.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:04 amAlso, 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?
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:04 amMy 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.
Compassionist wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:04 amThe 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.

Post Reply