Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[Archaeopteryx]

Instead of demonstrating why I am incorrect, all I'm getting from you atheists is that you "don't know" or that you have "insufficient information" and that is not a truth claim, but simply a refusal to engage...or as you put it...a dodge.

Speaking of dodging, I'm still waiting for you to address my question about plagiarism:

You didn't answer my question. Do you think it is acceptable to present someone else's work as if it is your own?

 

[Haasrecht]

I am late to this thread, obviously, but I have to ask: why is this in the philosophy section?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Unfortunately in claiming I violated the composition fallacy law you failed to indicate why. I pulled this definition from Wikipedia: "The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)." I don't see how this applies?

You said:

Now you point to one being in our world that does not come from something else and I will reconsider my position. And note here you cannot claim the universe is one since it is not an entity, rather the universe is more properly defined as the totality of all existing things. So you have to point to a specific thing within this universe, this one-verse, and show me how it is self-sufficient in order to rid us of an uncaused Cause. In fact you have to point to many uncaused causes in order to rid us of one uncaused cause.

What is true of members of a set is not necessarily true of the set itself. Our understanding of how things "come to be" within the universe need not apply beyond the universe, if being "beyond the universe" is even possible.

You said: "A beginning doesn't necessarily point to theism. A beginning may just be a 'first moment in time,' a temporal boundary." You mention time assuming it is also not uncaused. From my perspective time is not an existent being, rather is a being of reason. Time exists only in our mind as a sign of changeable being. Our idea of time exists precisely because beings exist that change and therefore time is a measure of this changeableness. So time in effect has a cause in that the beings it applies to are caused. We come back to the original question of tracing back from effect to cause does it stop and therefore have a beginning? If so, why? What is it's cause? The question of what is the cause of the first changeable being implies what is the cause of time?

Then the question needs to be phrased better because what you are essentially asking is whether there was a first moment of time, or as Sean Carroll puts it, the moment at which the concept of time becomes intelligible. As I mentioned earlier, such a beginning doesn't necessarily point to theism.

You ask about particular beings, such as stars or nebulae. Because stars exist this cause must be a star or because nebulae exist this cause must be a nebulae, implying a kind of incongruency to what I lay out here. Well this is a good point of distinction and the absurdity of it disappears once you properly understand what I mean by the First Cause. I've already said this Cause must have Intelligence, since it is the cause of lesser intellects.

This is not adequately justified. You are arbitrarily assigning properties to this cause based on features of the universe. You have no more reason to single out intelligence than you do celestial objects, such as stars and nebulae.

In other words all the beings we see around us are effects of this First Cause, that by definition must have those effects within it somehow. You assume effects such as stars and nebulae are in this First Cause, as they exist in our world (as material being), but I say that is not necessary. All that is necessary for this Intelligent Cause is to have each effect within it's mind for those effects to be possible. The difference between possibility and actuality are in the will. I mean what is in the Mind of this Intelligent Being comes into existence not because it is there but because this Being, this Intelligent First Cause wills it to be.

How is a mind capable of just "willing" things to be?

We ourselves mirror this since what is in our mind is not an actuality until we determine (will) it to be. For instance we have an idea of how the engine of our car should run even though it does not so we do some work to cause this ideal to move from potency in our mind to actuality in the car. We repair (cause) the car according to how we understand it should work. We don't just think it to be repaired but we do some act, that is we first must will for that image in our mind to be what is in reality in relation to the car. Our will causes us to act in a way that the idea in our mind becomes real. Likewise for the Mind of this First Cause and it's Will. There may be an infinite number of ideas in the Mind of this First Cause but they don't become a reality until that Mind Wills any particular idea into existence.

For this analogy to work, you'd have to be describing ex materia creation. Is that how you think this intelligence "willed" the universe into being?

Lastly, you ask why the universe cannot have it's sufficiency in itself? As I've said before the "universe" is not an existing being rather it is the totality of all existent beings. So you must refer to a specific individual being in order to pose this question. In doing so you simply beg the original question as to is there a first cause or not? Can each of the beings in our universe trace back through their cause ad-infinitium, or must we stop at some point determining there is a First Cause.

...

With all this in mind, allow me to ask you a question: If any particular being in this universe is self-sufficient can you point it out for me?

That doesn't answer my question, but it does recapitulate the flaw in your reasoning. If every individual thing requires a cause, it doesn't necessarily follow that the universe, which is the set of all those things, requires one also.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yours is a story similar to mine then!

You two are similar in more ways than one.

I think might be a good idea to quote you a famous atheist, David Hume:
"I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause".

I think you know very well that even the great skeptic David Hume would not go so far as to claim such an absurd proposition that something could arise without a cause.

 

[The Cadet]

But don't despair because as I said, no atheists I've talked to has ever really gotten it quite right, although you came close.

I looked it up in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy before making my response, just to make sure I had the gist of it right. Not sure where your version is from, as it is not what I've seen, well, anywhere. It's certainly not the version

1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.
2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.
3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.

Both premises are flawed. Premise 1 is by no means justified; it simply leaves us heading back to the same old tired "what evidence is there for god" path that leads nowhere. Premise 2 is flawed because I do not choose what I believe. The argument is still ludicrously bad, you've just removed the most blatantly obvious flaw.

It's amazing to me that I can't get any atheists to concur that "raping little girls for fun" is wrong no matter what any human thinks. Instead, I get comments like "we don't know" or "there is insufficient information". I have to say, I would never hire a babysitter who couldn't figure this out!!

Well, the little girls getting raped clearly think it's wrong. But if we're going to employ ridiculous strawmen to ridicule the opponent's position, then here, let me try:

"It's amazing to me that I can't get any Christian to concur that 'sacrificing your daughter' is wrong no matter what their God says. Instead, I get comments like 'God is perfect' or 'God must have a reason'. I have to say, I would never hire a babysitter who couldn't figure this out!! "

Again, if we're not talking about a set of rules designed to make for a good life and a good society, then I'm not sure how you can say we're talking about morality. This is not a matter of personal opinion. This is not a matter of what anyone thinks. A society that allows murder is objectively worse than one that does not - it is less stable, the people therein are less happy because they constantly have to fear for their lives and walk on eggshells, and the powerful could essentially take whatever they wanted by the barrel of a gun. And that is our goal in morality. What else is there? What should morality be beyond that?

 

[Davian]

I am late to this thread, obviously, but I have to ask: why is this in the philosophy section?

Good question. General apologetics are not permitted on this site, but there are certain individuals that consider themselves above the rules, and use this philosophy forum for this purpose. The threads are eventually locked, the user banned, then we'll do it all over again with another user, or a sock account of the same user.

Occasionally some interesting philosophical points are raised.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, first, as I've been saying, I believe that *objective* moral values and duties OMV&Ds *do* exist. Usually we say "absolute" or "objective" to differentiate from "subjective" MV&Ds. I believe that the bible teaches the existence of *objective* (not absolute) MV&Ds in that sometimes (for example) it is acceptable to kill while other times it is not. As many have pointed out, the correct interpretation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really "Thou shalt not *murder*". Moreover, I believe in the existence in the Christian god as opposed to any other.

Hmmm... I'll ask you the same question I asked Jeremy: So if God commanded you to kill men, women, and children, you would do so without hesitation, and you would consider it "morally commendable" to obey such a directive?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No...a miracle does *not* mean that something violated the laws of nature.

It is according to the dictionary:
Miracle:
- an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

But whatever, let's roll with your custom definition.

So how then, does one differentiate a supernatural event from a natural event, if the supernatural event could simply happen by natural means?

Once there is an intrusion into this nature from outside of this nature

That "intrusion" would qualify as an event that violates the laws of nature, it seems to me.

For example, suppose that you modified your car engine by installing improved spark plugs. Once that is done, the laws of nature would react in kind.

This example does not work, off course.
But let's pretend that it does.

In that case, the installment of "spark plugs" would be a manifestation in reality, if the engine is analogous to the universe.
In which case, "supernatural" events would be detectable. At this point, you have defined "miracle" to be a thing that can be empirically shown to be real.

In other words, absent this empirical evidence........

"F" still equals "ma"...before and after the intrusion.

The intrusion itself is a violation of natural laws. It's still "magic".


Answer me this: how to differentiate a "miracle" from a natural event?

 

[DogmaHunter]

DogmaHunter,
Sorry I'm not explaining myself very well here. Let me rephrase: Everything in the material world that we can observe has a cause.

The material world being "the universe", right?

So, what is the cause of virtual particles popping in and out of existence?

We don't see any material being that does not come from something else.

Indeed, all material things that are build from atoms, consist of rearrangements of existing atoms.

Now as I've explained before, we are then faced with two possibilities... that this cause and effect goes on forever...

No, that's incorrect. The material world = the universe.
If you don't agree with that statement, then I don't know what you mean by "material world".

So causality applies IN the universe for as long as there is a universe.

Cause and effect cannot go on forever in material being

Why not?

so we are faced with an uncaused Cause, or First Cause, defined as God.

I don't see any merrit in this arbitrary definition.
Not to mention that you are trying to take a phenomena of the material world and are trying to pretend that it still applies when the material world itself does not exist.

This is nothing but a gigantic argument from ignorance, special pleading, assumed conclusion and I'm pretty sure there is a god of the gaps in there as well.

Demonstrate? I never said God can be demonstrated scientifically, not directly anyhow.

Not indirectly either...

Nevertheless I am speaking prescientifically here because this argument is from observation. We can see cause and effect and work backwards, as scientists do when in the study of cosmology, they work back toward the Big Bang. So I give you a reasonable demonstration of God's existence short of you shaking his hand.

No. What you are doing is presenting that phenomena that apply IN the universe ALSO apply when there is NO universe.

And even ignoring that, you are merely "defining" this god into existence. You ain't showing anything. You are speculating with an assumed conclusion and an argument from ignorance.

In short this evidence is indirect as is our evidence gathered for the beginning of the universe. So the question becomes are you willing to be fair and accept what is allowable in scientific argumentation, observation of effect back to cause, as the basis of argument for God's existence?

Logical fallacies are not "allowable" in scientific argumentation.
Causality applies IN the universe and you have no shown that it also applies "outside" of it (whatever "outside of the universe" even means...). You are merely claiming it. And the only reason you have for doing that, is because of your a priori faith based beliefs.

Color me unimpressed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The objectivity is that a Perfect God would know perfectly what we imperfect (and failure prone) human beings need to do in order to maintain right relationships.

Clearly, the god you worship is also failure prone.
Why else would he have to "reset" the world as he did with the flood.
Why else would he have to "sacrifice himself to himself" in order to save us "from himself", because it turned out that he created a system where we were all doomed by default because of the rules that he himself imposed on it?

Don't know anymore who said it, but it certainly applies here: "you are created sick and then commanded to be healthy".

The objectivity is in God's knowledge ... we, on the other hand, don't know all that we need to do morally, so we are in a subjective place.

Are these "objective" morals written down in the bible?
Because if they are, then clearly "objective" morality has no problems with slavery, genocide, public executions for trivial things, etc.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"Objective" means that something is right or wrong regardless of what any human being thinks.

... or what any supernatural agent thinks?

 

[quatona]

I'm looking for an atheist who is willing to make a truth claim, just like I did.

Look, Joshua, you are pretty new in the business of copying WLC, aren´t you?
I have been here for quite some time, and I have seen a couple of WLC wannabees come and go. I know the script.
Let me tell you: you are doing it wrong.

You mustn´t beg for an atheist to make such a truth claim - that´s too obvious, too transparent -; you have to trick them into saying something that you can interprete as an "objective truth claim". Trap them.
The most effective way: Genocide apologetics. You pick one of the most extreme atrocities ascribed to God in the bible, and you claim that God was justified in committing them (you don´t have to really believe it, just say it - don´t worry, it´s a lie for Jesus), and - zadong - there will be an atheist who says something like "...but that was immoral of God". This is the point when you shout "TRUTH CLAIM! TRUTH CLAIM!", and continue with the script.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Look, Joshua, you are pretty new in the business of copying WLC, aren´t you?
I have been here for quite some time, and I have seen a couple of WLC wannabees come and go. I know the script.
Let me tell you: you are doing it wrong.

You mustn´t beg for an atheist to make such a truth claim - that´s too obvious, too transparent -; you have to trick them into saying something that you can interprete as an "objective truth claim". Trap them.
The most effective way: Genocide apologetics. You pick one of the most extreme atrocities ascribed to God in the bible, and you claim that God was justified in committing them (you don´t have to really believe it, just say it - don´t worry, it´s a lie for Jesus), and - zadong - there will be an atheist who says something like "...but that was immoral of God". This is the point when you shout "TRUTH CLAIM! TRUTH CLAIM!", and continue with the script.

Give him a break. He's new.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?" Care to answer?

No....it's possible that they exist, but if they do they are completely undetectable and everyone acts as if they don't exist.

 

[Davian]

...
So, now I ask myself:
Do I think that God would have me kill Hitler in order to stop the holocaust?

Or, if you lived at that time, or had a time machine, you could go and buy lots of his paintings from him, so that he would have made it his career.

But in the land of black and white, would that be just as morally wrong, in that you would be lying to him?

... There's really no way for us to know what methods God will use to achieve his ultimate goals. Btw, that is why the problem of evil argument fails to prove that God does not exist.

Of course. the unfalsifiable cannot be falsified. You will simply say that whatever happens happens for reasons unavailable. You presuppositions remain intact. And useless, for anyone not holding similar presuppositions.

God is certainly all-loving, and all-powerful, but there could be valid reasons for allowing evil to exist. Listen, Satan is an idiot! How can anyone outwit the best logistician (God) that ever existed.

The "best logistician"? Is that the "best logistician" that had to [allegedly] flood an entire planet when things went sideways on his first attempt? Invisible things that are clearly seen? And then there is the story of how God sacrifices Himself to Himself to change a rule He made Himself, in order to convince Himself to forgive a small portion of humanity for the crimes of two people who some Christians don't even believe existed as real people.

I would be hesitant to refer to this as the "best logistician".

Here's an example of an evil that was allowed, and which God used to bring about good.
"But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it to good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Genesis 50:20.

Better than the evil of convincing Hitler that he was a decent painter.

Thanks for the question.

Don't you have an apologetics blog for doing this sort of thing?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Clearly, the god you worship is also failure prone.

Maybe God failed at some point, and maybe He didn't, but your perception of His failure(s) depends on your limited, human subscription to some preconceived assumption as to what qualifies as moral success.

Why else would he have to "reset" the world as he did with the flood.

I wouldn't exactly call the Flood Story a 'reset'; rather, it was more of a 'paring down.'

Why else would he have to "sacrifice himself to himself" in order to save us "from himself", because it turned out that he created a system where we were all doomed by default because of the rules that he himself imposed on it?

In looking at the philosophical motifs embedded in the Garden of Eden Story, I wouldn't say that humanity was clearly doomed by default. It made a bad choice ...

Don't know anymore who said it, but it certainly applies here: "you are created sick and then commanded to be healthy".

Whether or not the Garden of Eden story is literal or metaphorical (and I tend toward the latter), the philosophical premises in the story seem to imply that humanity started with (and by implication still has) a very valuable cognitive asset, that is, being made in the Image of God. So, in my hermeneutical estimation, the Eden story is asserting that mankind has blown its chance(s) for peace with God early on ... and keeps blowing those chances, more often than not, even though it doesn't have to. Of course, God knew this would happened and upped the ante by participating in our fallen world, offering the opportunity for reconciliation with Him, and an escape from the ultimate consequences of our sinful resistence.

Are these "objective" morals written down in the bible?

No, not in a super specific way for all humanity, but to some extent, you're question indicates to me that you are missing the point of my previous post. Granted, I can't really fault you for that since you probably haven't read Oliver Barclay's essay entitled,"The Nature of Christian Morality," which expresses a theoretical moral framework he calls "Creation Ethics" and is somewhat different than the "Divine Command Ethics" theory that many of us usually hear. If you'd like to read Barclay's rather brief essay, you can find it here:

Readings in Christian Ethics - Volume 1: Theory and Method

Because if they are, then clearly "objective" morality has no problems with slavery, genocide, public executions for trivial things, etc.

It isn't the morality that is objective so much as it is God's person, God's knowledge, and God's Holiness. It is from His person that the objective moral frame emerges upon humanity and confines our human existence in the balance of His judgment and mercy.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Joshua260]

You are looking for someone who makes a stupid claim? Just so you don´t have to address the views atheists actually hold?

I'm *trying* to address the atheist' view, but all I hear is "I don't know" or "there is insufficient information", so they apparently have no view. Have you never seen a debate? The Christian takes a view and the atheist takes the opposing view...then they hash it out between them. But on the question of whether or not "is raping little girls for fun really wrong no matter what any human thinks" all I get from the atheists here is static.

And to distract from the fact that you can´t support your truth claim?

Of course I *did* provide support for my view. I explained that just as I believe that the outside word is real, so it is that I believe that OMV&Ds exist. It's called a properly basic belief. Your mistake is that you seem to think that truth can only be known through observation. You must be an empiricist.

"Empiricism is also self-refuting, and therefore should not be believed. Its essence could be stated as "experimental science is the only way to know something for sure." We might then ask, "What was the scientific experiment that demonstrated that experimental science is the only way to know something for sure?""
http://www.icr.org/article/empiricism-glaring-flaw-new-atheism/

So now that I've provided support for my truth claim, I'm waiting to hear from an atheist who disagrees and then provide some support for their opposing claim. However, if you go back to when I jumped in on this thread, it was in response to where a poster said "Morality = Subjective", which is a slick way of implying that OMV&Ds do not exist without outright making the truth claim. I've seen that tactic many times. Atheists keep disagreeing with my claim that OMV&Ds exist but not one will back up their counter-view with any justification.

Well, I guess, intelligent persons realize that voicing a subjective opinion that contains the qualifier "objective" doesn´t render it objective.
Thus, you asking me for my subjective opinion as to what´s objective isn´t leading anywhere.

Ahh, I see. So you're not willing to make the truth claim that "raping little girls for fun is really wrong"? You're not sure about that one, eh?

Look, if you disagree with my truth claim that OMV&Ds exist, then provide some justification for why I should disbelieve what appears to many to be obvious.

Remember this quote from atheist Louise Anthony?

“Any argument for moral skepticism will based upon premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.”

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument#ixzz3yIg7ujKa

 

[Joshua260]

...you are trying to switch the burden of proof.

Well, because it's your turn. I've made the truth claim that "raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks" and I've provided support for that position. I'm only interested in whether or not you agree with that claim. Care to answer?

 

[quatona]

Of course I *did* provide support for my view. I explained that just as I believe that the outside word is real, so it is that I believe that OMV&Ds exist.

Merely describing it isn´t supporting it.

It's called a properly basic belief.

Just declaring it "properly basic" doesn´t support it.

Your mistake is that you seem to think that truth can only be known through observation. You must be an empiricist.

Again, you are doing it wrong. Before you get to this tangent, you first would have to trick me into saying something that could be interpreted as "empiricistic". Not until then you can start this part of the WLC script.

So now that I've provided support for my truth claim, I'm waiting to hear from an atheist who disagrees and then provide some support for their opposing claim.

I´m just not convinced. Your support basically consists of the empty assertion that it´s a reasonable and "properly basic belief". Everybody can say that.
Thus, I have no obligation to defend a truth claim I haven´t made. I can conveniently lean back and scrutinize your attempts at supporting and substantiating your truth claim. So far you didn´t do particularly well.

However, if you go back to when I jumped in on this thread, it was in response to where a poster said "Morality = Subjective",

Subjective morality exists demonstrably. So there isn´t a problem here.
The question is not "is morality subjective or objective", but: Does - apart from or beyond the demonstrably existing subjective morality - possibly exist some "objective morality", as well.

which is a slick way of implying that OMV&Ds do not exist without outright making the truth claim.

I´m not the poster who wrote this. Maybe he meant to imply that, maybe he didn´t.
I have just explained to you that that your conclusion that he implied it doesn´t follow.

I've seen that tactic many times. Atheists keep disagreeing with my claim that OMV&Ds exist but not one will back up their counter-view with any justification.

Yeah, it´s inconvenient that people do not simply adopt counter-views they don´t hold just to humour you.
Therefore, as I have told you before, you have to approach this differently. Look more closely how your idol WLC does it. He doesn´t whine that people don´t hold views which would give him the opportunity to shift the burden. No, he tricks them into saying something that - with a little stretch, wordsmithing and logic wizardry can be interpreted as a counter-claim. You sure need more practice in that business.
As long as I know his script and his tactics better than you, and as long as I am sure I could make a way better WLC-imposter than you do, this is an incredible up hill battle for you.

Ahh, I see. So you're not willing to make the truth claim that "raping little girls for fun is really wrong"? You're not sure about that one, eh?

Yes. I can merely tell you that I consider it wrong. In the absence of a solid case for your "OMV&Ds" hypothesis, I actually don´t even know what the "really" is supposed to mean. I´m not going to add unparsimonous, unnecessary, undefined qualifiers to an otherwise clear statement.

Look, if you disagree with my truth claim that OMV&Ds exist,

I just don´t know that such exist. And since you apparently are unwilling or unable to make a good case for their existence, I have nothing to work from in order to achieve knowledge in that field.

then provide some justification for why I should disbelieve what appears to many to be obvious.

You can believe whatever you want. That´s none of my business.
Following these conversation, it´s more like you want to convince others of your truth claim.
Btw., what appears to many (including me) to be obvious is "this is wrong", not "this is REALLY (as in: according to OMV&Ds) wrong".

Remember this quote from atheist Louise Anthony?

“Any argument for moral skepticism will based upon premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.”

No, never heard of it. Is this guy an authority of sorts? Does quoting even only an unsubstantiated truth claim of his make you automatically correct, or something?

 

[Joshua260]

Here's a twist in the inquiry previously posed to you:

If you had lived in ancient times past, and lived in relations to the Jewish people--

1) ... do you think it would be moral to kill Nebuchadnezzar in order to stop the destruction of the Jewish people and the Holy Land, as well as the Exile (i.e. enslaved subjection) of the few remaining Jewish people to Babylon?

2) ...do you think it would be moral to kill Vespasian and Titus in order to stop the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, along with its Jewish inhabitants, not to mention the later Dispersion of the rest of the Jewish population across the Roman Empire?

Just asking. [And if anyone else would like to take a shot at answering these questions, feel free to do so.]

2PhiloVoid

Thanks for the question.

I always like to begin by making it clear that I am a Molinist, because as you know, Christians vary by degrees regarding Free Will versus the Sovereignty of God. I like to make this clear mostly for the benefit of unbelievers who may not be as familiar with the differences.

So let me work through this...

First, going off of what I wrote earlier, I hope I made it clear that whenever you say "Do you think it would be moral to...", I'm going to substitute that phrase with "Would God have me do..."...because I believe in OMV&Ds.

Second, you said "in order to stop the destruction of..." and "in order to stop the Roman destruction of..." and I hope I already made it clear that I believe God's goal is more than just keeping people alive in a "fallen" state. Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters? If you haven't, I highly recommend it!! It's about a senior devil teaching a junior devil how to manipulate a man to hell, and it was set during WW2. What really surprised me in that book was that the senior devil was very adamant towards the junior devil *not* to kill their subject (in a bombing raid I think)!! Why? Because they didn't "have him" yet!! My guess is that God's highest goal is something like "that we should not perish, but have everlasting life". After all, that goal required his greatest sacrifice. I think this answers your question. You seemed to be presenting the choice of would God rather some die or others...but I think God has goals that are usually related to eternal life decisions.

BTW, in response to your dilemma #1, Jeremiah made it clear that God *did not want* the Jews to kill Nebuchadnezzar, and that his purpose during that episode was actually to discipline the Jews for their constant disobedience. So that's an easy one:

"Would God have me...'kill Nebuchadnezzar in order to stop the destruction of the Jewish people and the Holy Land, as well as the Exile (i.e. enslaved subjection) of the few remaining Jewish people to Babylon?'"
Answer: Nope.

So I think I understood the point of your posed dilemmas, but some things you said indicate that you may have been questioning the workings of Molinism, so let me address that too.

Some of the things you referenced relate to various prophecies. For example, the coming of the Messiah was prophesized to occur 490 years after the command to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. See below:

Daniel 9:25 (KJV)
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

So some non-molinist might ask, wouldn't that prophecy mean that because God knew this would happen, that Nebuchadnezzar did not have a choice? Nope. If the truths of the "counterfactuals of creaturely freedom" were different, then God's plan (the world he would have chosen to actualize) would have been different also.

Again, thanks for the question.