Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[SammyT123]

Universal laws not being necessarily universal

My point is that people are studying that very question of whether the laws of physics are constant. They haven't proven anything yet.

Sam: You can’t say “we agree with science and the universal laws of physics always hold true, except for miracles in the bible tho…”

Why not?

Oh boy….
Let’s get into details. In your honest opinion and judgement, does the law conservation of matter always hold true? Or are ‘people’ still ‘studying it’ and “they haven’t proven anything yet”?

A) And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

B) And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have — from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property.

The Hebrew term ‘ebed' translated slave or usually servant, designates a range of social and economic roles.

Word Origin
from abad
Definition
slave, servant
NASB Translation
attendants (1), bondage (2), male (24), male servant (7), male servants (5), male slaves (1), officers (1), official (2), Servant (6), servant (332), servant's (4), servant* (1), servants (353), servants' (2), servants* (12), slave (25), slave's (1), slave* (4), slavery (11), slaves (19), slaves* (8).

Concepts may be slightly different (some translations use the word bond-servant instead in places, where it is sometimes translated slavery).

Here are the most widely used and accepted transaltions
NRSV - Servant
NAB - Servant
KJV - Slave
OJB - Slave
(C) "Hear and give ear; do not be haughty, for the Lord has spoken. . . . And if you say in your heart, 'Why have these things come upon me?' it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you are violated . . . because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen." (Jeremiah 13:15–26)

As with Ezekiel 16 (which employs similar language). Language is symbolic to describe Israel's unfaithfulness. Hardly a passage to use to determine ethics. That is a sketch.

Really doesn’t seem like it is out of context here, or anything to do with Israels unfaithfulness.
“Skirts lifted up” is sexual assault. “Violate” is rape. For “skirts lifted up,” the NIV has “skirts torn off,” the NLT has “stripped,” CEV “clothes torn off,” and the LB has “raped.” For “violated,” the NIV has “mistreated,” CEV “abused,” and the NLT “raped.” The Good News Translation has the good news that “your clothes have been torn off and you have been raped.”

Your explanation for the last quote (about babies being dashed against a rock) makes sense , and I quite like that link. It explains it very well! (It is only an expression of deep sorrow)

This is your presupposition: "an innocent and caring dude who just happens to be born into a different religion." I would argue that such a person call him Bill, doesn't exist.

Wrong
1) There is a guy named Bob, a Christian, who will go to heaven (hopefully there are a few people like him)
2) There is a guy named Bill, and for all intents and purposes, he is very similar to Bob (He may look different, but his intentions, actions and character is the same). The only difference is that Bill was born in a muslim family and naturally prays to allah.
3) Bill goes to hell

Your logic is incoherent in parts, and not demonstrated. As I have repeatedly said, God did not engineer the universe so that we would reject him.

As I have said repeatedly, you imply that we have free-will and that humans reject god.

Let me ask you
1 – Did god know that we would sin and therefore suffer tremendously beforehand?
2 – Does god have the power to ensure we don’t suffer, and instead understand his creation by default?
You claim that the genetic diseases or birth defects are caused by “humans as a whole being sinful”.
Yet the child has not commited sin. Why does the child suffer for sins he/she did not commit, and how is this fair?

And the main point – Even if we assume that it is fair for god to punish a newborn for the sins of other humans, God can still choose to save the child. Why doesn’t he?



Would it really hurt God to create a world in which one less child is born with a life threatening disease? I get it, we are sinners and don’t accept the Christian god.

I would suggest that it would be an impossible suggestion. To turn the question on its head, why doesn't the world have one more child born with that.

Sigh.
I’m hoping that the world has less suffering, and not more. This is why I ask the good god to reduce a birth defect in a newborn, not increase it.

Suffering isn't a quantitative thing, it is a qualitative thing, most people will suffer.

Three kids suffering the exact disease is better than four.

Even Jesus did. The other problem, is this presumes we know the total number of people who as child will suffer in a given way. We don't. We have no way of knowing how many children will suffer in the future, and we won't know too much how many have suffered in the past. In the scale of suffering, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference really.

I really don’t care if we could tell the difference. 100 Kids born without disease is still a good thing, regardless if we can measure the total amount of suffering in the past/future.

He simply created a universe in which he knows the majority of people will either suffer tremendously, or die and go to eternal hell because of their sins!
He didn’t determine our sin ofc, that would be mean. (Assuming we have free-will, which is nonsense because god knows exactly what we will do before we do it. )

He also knows and even determines that some of those people, instead of going to eternal hell, will go to heaven, to deal with sin & evil. Those people will inherit a new creation without sin and suffering.

Cool!
I will update my statement accordingly
He simply created a universe in which he knows the majority of people will either suffer tremendously, or die and go to eternal hell because of their sins (Save for a small minority, who will go to heaven)

Romans 9:22-23: God choosing to show his anger to those who reject him, and to show grace to those he saves (which we don't know the numbering of, of the percentage split between the two)

I will be VERY generous, and assume every single person who identifies as Christian is saved.
This means that >70% of people will still go to hell (All part of Gods plan!)

(1) Humpf, God could have been really selfish and not decide to create at all (sarcasm), he would enjoy himself eternally, he doesn't need us.

Better than creating a universe where 100s of billions suffer imho
Better than creating a universe where the vast majority of people will end up in eternal hell

(
Secondly, but again this is more of an assertion from a position of faith, is that without God, the world would be a lot worse off.[ /QUOTE]
???????

(
(2) God has done enough that is needed in the person of Jesus. The war over sin and death was won in that way. God choose what seems to outsiders, a bit dumb foolish way, but it is so that no-one may boast before him.

What constitutes “enough”?
God has the power to end all suffering, and he knows exactly what it would take to save us. The majority of the population being destined to eternal hell is not exactly, well, ‘enough’ imho.

Sam: He created the world specifically knowing that there would be torture, and he can stop it. Guess he didn’t for some sick reason.

Dan: My reason was he gives people (collectively and sometimes individually) up to their own sin because it is what they want, you are getting what you wanted, a life without God, enjoy!.

Sam: I was hoping you would say this. “Those born in poverty, those with genetic diseases, have it because its what they want! You get what you wanted!!”

No that is not correct. The situation/explanation I have is general, rather than specifics.

Do you, or do you not have a justification for why god allows for genetic life threatening diseases to occur in newborns?

The whole “In general/collectively, humans sin, so in general humans suffer” is a very poor justification lol….


This makes god seem like an asshole. “Well, if you want to sin, fine! Go and suffer for it! I won’t stop you”
Imagine a parent letting their child do illegal drugs “Fine! It’s what you want, so go and suffer”

What if the child is legally an adult, the parent still is due honour, but the adult can do what they want and suffer the consequences.

The parent should still try prevent the child from doing something that causes inevitable harm. (Drugs in this case, or eternal torture in hell for God’s case)

That is the same with us and God. He treats us with honour, by giving us freedom of choice (which is different to a free will).

A parent giving their kids ‘free choice’ to do illegal drugs is not honourable at all…




BTW, God can just walk up to my doorstep, have a chat , and perform some of these miracles. I guarantee you, if God does the right things he can have what he wants, a faithful believer.

I doubt that. People in Jesus' day had the same thing, the very thing you are requesting, and they rejected him. What makes you any better.

Dan964- Moderator and mindreader.
Thanks for telling me how I would react in a situation! Silly me to thing I am any different to the people in the old days.

I am absolutely certain that I will believe in the Christian god if he performs some of those miracles in front of me. I am probably wrong tho, bc you seem to know that I wouldn’t

Yes and I don't think we have a true free will (Adam did). We are bound to our nature, kind of like a box of societal conventions that we (unknowingly) follow, laws if you like.These don't determine the specific actions, but they so strongly influence our choices that we cannot act in a way inconsistent with our nature (for instance we cannot fly). The Bible teaches that human nature is corrupted, and so all actions by God's measure/law are corrupt.

You missed the point entirely

Does god know exactly how sam will act in any given future date? Yes
Is god always correct? Yes
Therefore, Sam must (and will) act exactly how God foresaw. Sam is not free to act in any other way, because that would make god incorrect.

I don't dispute this statement.

You directly stated that “The laws of physics are not always universal”.
I beg you, read the actual article instead of just the title. The author does not prove, think or even believe that his findings dispute the universal laws of physics/


Are the universal laws of physics , universal? Yes or no?

That is very sly and presumptious, you called them universal, and so asking if they are universal, is a circular question?

You do not comprehend what I am saying. “Universal laws of physics” is just how I refer to them, their common name. I will rephrase. “Is the law of conservation of matter, universal?”

A better question, what does it mean for a universal law to be universal. I would take it that WLOG it hold, both time and place (the latter question is one which some scientists are studying).

The miracles mentioned in the bible had a time and place. I don’t see your point.

But somehow if there is data where that law does not hold, scrutiny needs to identify whether that is an error, or a genuine factor that needs to be accounted for in our definitions of universal laws.

Can you provide me links to some data/research that is strongly indicative that the law of conservation of matter is not universal?

Secondly, not everything explainable is reducible to these laws, so in that sense they aren't universal or necessarily the only explanation of an event.

Yes, the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t explain why I procrastinate so much, or why I hate mixing two flavours of ice-cream together. The vast majority of scientists however, would agree that it still always hold true.

Slightly off, my claim is reliant on the claim that 500 people hallucinating itself a violation of the laws of physics, it has not been demonstrated, and no serious scientific case, has been put forward to suggest that 500 people hallucinating in the conditions I have mentioned, is possible. And if it is, that is a miracle more significant than the resurrection itself.

By the way, how do you know that 500 people were present?
Dan: I believe that the resurrection documented in the bible has occurred
Sam: What evidence do you have?
Dan: Other verses in the bible

lmao

Side note:
What if I tell you, not only 500, but 100,000 eyewitnesses can be mistaken at the same time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fátima#Miracle_of_the_Sun
Looks like we found “a miracle more significant than the resurrection itself!”
Mass hysteria is also a cause
The Tanganyika Laughter Epidemic. The Mad Gasser of Mattoon. The Monkey Man of New Delhi. War of the Worlds. "Black Peril", "Yellow Peril" and all forms of extreme xenophobia through the ages. various mass UFO reports (that exaggerated natural phenomena). the Great Fear (la Grande Peur). Kissing Bug scare. the Coke Scare Of 1999
And hundreds more

The Bible is not a single book/text, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to use Acts to legitimize 1 Corinthians 15 and piece-together the chronology and background to Paul's claims. This is one benefit we have over say a single transmission line or text (which selected Muslims claim they have for the Quran).

15? The upnishads were formed with 200+ collections of independent Sanskrit literature from across large, untraversable (at the time) geographical boundaries which refer to a god who looks like a monkey.
You make it seem like we can be certain that the accounts in the bible were written independently. It has been an ongoing debate and we can never be sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels (Check our the sources at the bottom of the page)
Also note: The gospels were almost exclusively written by Jesus’ supporters , starting 40 years AFTER his crucifixion

I am not verifying the claim is necessarily true, but that an argument that has enough evidence to the contrary has not been put forth.

Proof for the law of conservation of energy is abundant. Evidence suggest that people can not return from the dead, or turn sticks into snakes.

I can write a book, state “Steve returned back from the dead”. This evidence isn’t very compelling…

Who is Steve? What is his relation to you? What is the state you were in at Steve's death? Were you present at his death, or know people who were?Did you see his funeral where he laid them? These are many questions that you haven't answered. I am not that naive.

Steve is my mate. I was healthy and in my book I claim all 500 people were. In my book I claim I saw his funeral and where he was laid. Questions answered. Has nothing to do with what I am trying to demonstrate

You can’t use accounts in the bible to prove the accounts in the bible. You need to give me some sort of external, independent eyewitness accounts, not a verse which states 500 people saw Steve/Jesus die.

It’s ok if you are having trouble understanding this . Here is a good read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Yeah you come to it, with your conclusions. It is reflected in your questions, e.g. your question on universal law. You have particular standards for a text of history, my question is do you consistently apply them to non-religious texts as you would the Bible.

Yes. I apply widely accepted scientific principles such as the law of conservation of energy before accepting a fact which disputes it.

No need to apply it when watching a cartoon or reading a work of fiction/art. Why? Simple. I don’t draw conclusions about the universe and make statements of fact according to Shakespeare or Dr suess.

I don’t make claims about the existence of a heaven, angels, an omnipotent being and miracles which disobey universal laws such as the law of conservation of matter.

And I am not making most of those claims in this particular discussion. I am only simply making one claim that the resurrection of Jesus happened.

Agreed. Was talking about your previous posts.

 

[SammyT123]

Plz don't spam the thread with 50 different posts in wrong order. Can you just write your "sketch" response in one ordered post.

Hope you don't mind them meme
Keeps the convo interesting (just banter)

 

[dan964]

Plz don't spam the thread with 50 different posts in wrong order. Can you just write your "sketch" response in one ordered post.

Hope you don't mind them meme
Keeps the convo interesting (just banter)

I will split it over 2-3.

memes are ok.

 

[dan964]

I will split my reply by topic... I type my replies in notepad.

===On the topic of science and miracles===

Sam: You can’t say “we agree with science and the universal laws of physics always hold true, except for miracles in the bible tho…”
...

I have doing some more reading, as so to articulate my position a bit clearer and the problems I have with yours.

[1.1] Firstly, I view that statement "universal laws of physics always hold true" you have tirelessly made as science laws as a convention not strictly as fact.
(This is adopted due to the problem of induction)

[1.2] Secondly, my position is not "always" but without loss of generality (WLOG), that is definitely not the same thing. Therefore,
I am not however drawing the conclusions of (#1) or (#2)

They may be similar positions, but my convention also is not to assume laws are broken, but to seek a proper understanding of the "outlier" data.
I do not assume the "outlier" data or as we call it a miracle is not necessarily naturalistic, but seek to understand as you would say whether it is consistent with
other data.

[1.3] ** My key presumption for the study is that the existence rather the quantity nor the scale of such data is what is signficant, as it is counter-example to the hypothesis,
from a statistical perspective, the reason I argue that is the pragmatic applications both logically, and to the question of this thread.

[1.4] It is part of your framework. I think "problem of induction" is significant

Several problems with the inductive reasoning, which are 2 variants of the same thing:
(#1) Generalisation from past experience aka. the black swan problem (e.g. dead people haven't ever risen, so therefore dead people can never rise)
(#2) Proposing a sequence of events in the future will always occur as it always has in the past (e.g. laws of physics will hold as they always have been)

Note: this applies to both sides, for instance the ontological arguments themselves can have make the same argument, and even some of the material raised.
There are several ways to resolve this issue:
- Appeal to some authority for the foundational framework (justification) for presuppositions. This works if you can establish the authority.
(adopted by Christians I'll explain in a sec)
- Hume's argument, that induction is still useful, and improvements can be made.
I agree that is what science is, however that leads me to reject the idea of absolute scientific proof from evidence.
This position is very compatible with the notion of scholarship and "peer-reviewed articles".
- Stove's argument uses statistic syllogisms. There is benefits to this approach in particular studies (espercially confidence intervals and probability) but there
are informal fallacies
>> (#3) fallacy of accident (also known as destroying the exception, ignoring possible exceptions: deductively valid but unsound, so deceptive)
>> (#4) converse accident (exception is wrongly excluded, generalisation wrong called as applying to all cases)
For e.g. If one person rose from the dead more people would rise (#2). Such an argument has not been properly argued, it is not necessarily illogical,
but it is a case of "converse accident". Thankfully that argument I have not seen used too often.

- Popper's position, that science is not inductive, knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism. It uses existing theories and attempts to falsify them.

I agree with his position to some degree as well as a secular argument for [1.1]
(A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical.
Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn
into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method).

I agree as so to far to say in science you can disprove theorems, but not prove them, this means there is no closed scientific canon.
Interesting Popper also argues the truth content of our theories cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified. His position might be untenable, but I find some agreement with him
but would have to go deeper into all 3 positions. Scientific study is then mainly less about proving things (that is the realm of mathematics/logic)
and more to do with "best explanation".

Implications, implications everywhere

[1.5] Food for thought. Interesting comment, is that the argument "things do not pop into existence out of nothing", is itself an argument used by Christians that is faulty.

[2.1] Addressing the Christian line of logic.
A4 I think is one of the critical starting points (look at Paul's way of addressing Greek philosophers in Acts 17)
Most major world religions I can think of, have this in common.

P1 (premise). Establish God's existence (using whatever means is ok).

From P1, we have
F2 (established/undisputed) We exist (as part of universe)
C3 (corollary - mostly structural fine). God made us (since by definition God made universe)

A4 (assumption). God made us in his likeness/image etc.
F5 (established/undisputed) Humans relate to one another and use speech.
C6 (corollary - tenantive som would argue an assumption) Humans speak, God has spoken.

....Faith then...
K7 (key from C6): God has spoken through Jesus....
C8 (requires A7): Jesus established authority of Scriptures, and also of apostles teachings and then conseq. Paul.
C9 Scriptures testify to inspiration by God.

(For me personally, this how I would explain the rationale behind my faith. There are some jumps, based on assessments of the contents of the Bible).

A7 is just dense though, I have simplified it, but actually the link between A7 and C8 itself, can only be established with A7.
Muslims believe that God has spoken through Jesus, but they reject C8, contrary the Jesus' words.

To address other things said:
====

In your honest opinion and judgement, does the law conservation of matter always hold true?

My counter-question: does it need to? I have given my position, which is WLOG not always.
Theologically speak

Or are ‘people’ still ‘studying it’ and “they haven’t proven anything yet”?

Irrelevant. Whether people are studying has not being on whether it can be proven or not. Also in science we only disprove things.

Are the universal laws of physics , universal? Yes or no? “Is the law of conservation of matter, universal?” The miracles mentioned in the bible had a time and place. I don’t see your point.

Doesn't matter whether specific law of all laws, you have not defined universal. Universal can mean "a term or concept of general application', which as argued does not imply always. In that case do I believe those laws are
general and useful enough yes, so I can say they are universal. But universal does not imply always. I cannot answer your questions honestly sometimes if you haven't well defined particular words you are using.
We do have different positions.

The vast majority of scientists however, would agree that it still always hold true.

Not every scientist holds to naturalism.
===

Part 2 coming soon.

 

[dan964]

Part 2 everything else

NASB Translation

NRSV - Servant
NAB - Servant
KJV - Slave
OJB - Slave

Note: translation. Translation does not always capture culture context and the meaning of the world. Meanings of words change over time, as does the translation process
(which like science is also a refinement as is textual criticism). You might need to explain yourself here.


(C) "Hear and give ear; do not be haughty, for the Lord has spoken. . . . And if you say in your heart, 'Why have these things come upon me?' it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you are violated . . . because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen." (Jeremiah 13:15–26)
Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
As with Ezekiel 16 (which employs similar language). Language is symbolic to describe Israel's unfaithfulness. Hardly a passage to use to determine ethics. That is a sketch.
Really doesn’t seem like it is out of context here, or anything to do with Israels unfaithfulness.

“Skirts lifted up” is sexual assault. “Violate” is rape.
For “skirts lifted up,” the NIV has “skirts torn off,” the NLT has “stripped,” CEV “clothes torn off,” and the LB has “raped.”
For “violated,” the NIV has “mistreated,” CEV “abused,” and the NLT “raped.”
The Good News Translation has the good news that “your clothes have been torn off and you have been raped.”

What translation were you originally using (I suspect ESV). What version is the LB? NASB has "skirts removed" (it is a fairly wooden/literal translation).

Occurs in Jeremiah 13 (twice), Nahum 5, Isaiah 47, Ezekiel 16 (indirect): but it is all shocking imagery
e.g. "Your nakedness will be uncovered, Your shame also will be exposed"
It is metaphorical picture language, I do seriously think you missed that one. It is supposed to shock you.
It isn't to be taken as imperative or this is something we should do.

Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
This is your presupposition: "an innocent and caring dude who just happens to be born into a different religion."
I would argue that such a person call him Bill, doesn't exist.

Wrong
1) There is a guy named Bob, a Christian, who will go to heaven (hopefully there are a few people like him)
2) There is a guy named Bill, and for all intents and purposes, he is very similar to Bob
(He may look different, but his intentions, actions and character is the same).
The only difference is that Bill was born in a muslim family and naturally prays to allah.
3) Bill goes to hell

Recycling content suggests you do not actually read carefully what I have written.
Again let me highlight:

1. Yes there are people who believe.
2. Again such a guy does not exist. And even if he was as good as Bill, he is not justified before God because he rejects Jesus.
The Quran denies Jesus was crucified/died, something which every other source (roman, jewish, christian) all agree on.

Praying to God or any false god does not equal saved, especially the latter.
Also there are lots more differences if Bill is a devout Muslim and Bob is a devout/believing Christian. There beliefs about God, Jesus, salvation
are fundamentally different.

Also religiousity or devoutness doesn't save you. All are by default going to hell, only those who believe in Jesus (Christian) are saved.
It is because only by Jesus can save (and not the Muslim version of Jesus or the Hindu version of Jesus).

As I have said repeatedly, you imply that we have free-will and that humans reject god.

We have free choice, but not a free will. Slight difference. Our will is bound to our nature.

Let me ask you

1 – Did god know that we would sin and therefore suffer tremendously beforehand?

of course. But he works all things for the good of those who love him, whom he predestined to be conformed to Jesus... (Romans 8:28-29)
For instance 2 examples:
- Joseph brothers sold him into slavery, God used that to save many people from famine.
- Jesus, Jewish leaders conspired and crucified him, but God used that to bring salvation and eternal life to the nations.
Hebrews 2:8-10 (commentary on Psalm 8), c.f. Acts 2:22-36

- Suffering/persecution of Christians, God uses that to make us more like Jesus (because Jesus suffered) (why do Christians put with the oppression overseas?)

2 – Does god have the power to ensure we don’t suffer, and instead understand his creation by default?

a bit of misunderstanding there, the two things aren't as closley/directly linked.

with Jesus, recommend reading Hebrews 2:8-10 (read around it).

You claim that the genetic diseases or birth defects are caused by “humans as a whole being sinful”.
Yet the child has not commited sin. Why does the child suffer for sins he/she did not commit, and how is this fair?

Sketch answer but sin is not simply something committed, it is more complex than that. Death reigns, and so the baby, yes they may not break a command, they are still
in sin.
But remember I said it was a general explanation. Humanity's sin in general is reponsible for suffering overall. This explanation does not unfortunately link specific
suffering to specific sins, we reject karma.

And the main point – Even if we assume that it is fair for god to punish a newborn for the sins of other humans, God can still choose to save the child.
Why doesn’t he?

You are assuming he doesn't. I am not in the place of God, I wouldn't know whether he has or hasn't. I don't have a nice easy answer for that one.
I can trust that he is good, and do what is just.

Would it really hurt God to create a world in which one less child is born with a life threatening disease?
I get it, we are sinners and don’t accept the Christian god.

You already said that. I cannot answer specific analogies/examples wrt suffering. I can only give you the bigger picture and say that we don't have the full picture
other than promises that God has made, and things like Ephesians 1:9-10.

[quo]te I would suggest that it would be an impossible suggestion. To turn the question on its head, why doesn't the world have one more child born with that.
Sigh.
I’m hoping that the world has less suffering, and not more. This is why I ask the good god to reduce a birth defect in a newborn, not increase it.
[/quote]
How would you know whether he has or not. One will not be enough for you.

Suffering isn't a quantitative thing, it is a qualitative thing, most people will suffer.

Three kids suffering the exact disease is better than four.

100 Kids born without disease is still a good thing, regardless if we can measure the total amount of suffering in the past/future.

Basically you are saying, God end all suffering, to just take it to the logical ends. Again I don't have answers for specific cases.
Why would God be obliged to end only the suffering of a few? Hmm? That would not be fair, would it?

He simply created a universe in which he knows the majority of people will either suffer tremendously, or die and go to eternal hell because of their sins!
He didn’t determine our sin ofc, that would be mean. (Assuming we have free-will, which is nonsense because god knows exactly what we will do before we do it. )

Rehashed.

Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
He also knows and even determines that some of those people, instead of going to eternal hell, will go to heaven, to deal with sin & evil. Those people will inherit a new creation without sin and suffering.
Cool!
I will update my statement accordingly
He simply created a universe in which he knows the majority of people will either suffer tremendously, or die and go to eternal hell because of their sins (Save for a small minority, who will go to heaven)

Hebrews 9:27 - man is destined to die once and face judgement. Suffering is a precursor to death. All part of judgement for sin.
You simply don't think sin is that bad that it warrants suffering/judgement. Let me illustrate, if I cut a rose off my garden, it looks pretty but it will wither and die.
that is the case with all of humanity, we have been severed from the source of life, so it is expected that suffering happens.

Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
Romans 9:22-23: God choosing to show his anger to those who reject him, and to show grace to those he saves (which we don't know the numbering of, of the percentage split between the two)
I will be VERY generous, and assume every single person who identifies as Christian is saved.

This means that >70% of people will still go to hell (All part of Gods plan!)

Better than creating a universe where 100s of billions suffer imho. Better than creating a universe where the vast majority of people will end up in eternal hell

Read the whole chapter.
God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.
We are all in the same position, we all deserve hell, we all deserve much much worse suffering all of us. God doesn't not have to do anything for you
he doesn't have to save anyone. The fact that he does is surprising.

What constitutes “enough”?
God has the power to end all suffering, and he knows exactly what it would take to save us.
The majority of the population being destined to eternal hell is not exactly, well, ‘enough’ imho.

Jesus death only saves the believers, those whom God has set apart to show grace to. But why does God choose anyone to be saved at all?

Sam: He created the world specifically knowing that there would be torture, and he can stop it. Guess he didn’t for some sick reason.

Dan: My reason was he gives people (collectively and sometimes individually) up to their own sin because it is what they want, you are getting what you wanted, a life without God, enjoy!.

Sam: I was hoping you would say this. “Those born in poverty, those with genetic diseases, have it because its what they want! You get what you wanted!!”

Not that straighforward. There is a reason my answer is general. Because why suffering exists because of the world (people that is) have rejected God and that is their
default position. God's answer is to remove a little bit of his goodness as a response. Which includes giving people over to their own desires.

Do you, or do you not have a justification for why god allows for genetic life threatening diseases to occur in newborns?

The whole “In general/collectively, humans sin, so in general humans suffer” is a very poor justification lol….

Suit yourself. Only a general explanation of brokenness of this world. You do not understand the problem of sin so I don't expect it to be a good justification.

This makes god seem like an asshole. “Well, if you want to sin, fine! Go and suffer for it! I won’t stop you”
Imagine a parent letting their child do illegal drugs “Fine! It’s what you want, so go and suffer”

The parent should still try prevent the child from doing something that causes inevitable harm.
(Drugs in this case, or eternal torture in hell for God’s case)

Firstly, hell = inevitable harm? It is not necessarily inevitable, some are saved. You should be asking why doesn't God save everyone. Because he doesn't have to.
The problem with the illustration used by both of us, it implies a future action. Unfortunately we have already rejected God, we are already condemned. Why doesn't God be fair
and punish us completely right now.

We are reflecting back on the past, and say could God have done it better, my answer, you need to know the future/big picture to be able to make that assessment.
(short answer - no)

When Adam sinned it was too late. Why didn't God prevent Adam sin? (Well it wasn't his plan)

A parent giving their kids ‘free choice’ to do illegal drugs is not honourable at all…

Analogies can only be stretched so far. Maybe drugs was a loaded word.
A parent cannot stop their child from making decisions even they are against the word of the parent; and suffer the consequences of disobeying parents.
That is a better illustration.

Now God could, but would that be loving?

Thanks for telling me how I would react in a situation! Silly me to thing I am any different to the people in the old days.
I am absolutely certain that I will believe in the Christian god if he performs some of those miracles in front of me. I am probably wrong tho, bc you seem to know that I wouldn’t

You aren't in some ways. Jesus taught very clearly on the subject that is why, I am simply explaining my position. You asked me a question, I answered.

Does god know exactly how sam will act in any given future date? Yes

Is god always correct? Yes

Therefore, Sam must (and will) act exactly how God foresaw. Sam is not free to act in any other way, because that would make god incorrect.

This assumes that God operates in the same time ordered fashion that we do. God is outside of space and time, so your first comment is incoherent.
God knows all of time/space at once. God is.

You directly stated that “The laws of physics are not always universal”.
I beg you, read the actual article instead of just the title. The author does not prove, think or even believe that his findings dispute the universal laws of physics/

Yes. That was an incoherence in this statement “The laws of physics are not always universal”.

Slightly off, my claim is reliant on the claim that 500 people hallucinating itself a violation of the laws of physics, it has not been demonstrated, and no serious scientific case, has been put forward to suggest that 500 people hallucinating in the conditions I have mentioned, is possible. And if it is, that is a miracle more significant than the resurrection itself.

By the way, how do you know that 500 people were present?
Dan: I believe that the resurrection documented in the bible has occurred
Sam: What evidence do you have?
Dan: Other verses in the bible

Bible is not one book.You are not represented my position accurately sorry.
Dan: I believe that the resurrection has occurred, an account traceable to 35AD.
Sam: What evidence do you have?
Dan: Other writers, writing the same thing (well not identical accounts mind you, there are differences on the details).

Side note:
What if I tell you, not only 500, but 100,000 eyewitnesses can be mistaken at the same time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_La...cle_of_the_Sun

I was going to quote that example in my previous reply. There is a reason why I mentioned that the resurrection appearances were not prompted.
Subject matter on collective halluncinations is limited, but studies have found that they

Looks like we found “a miracle more significant than the resurrection itself!”
Mass hysteria is also a cause
The Tanganyika Laughter Epidemic. The Mad Gasser of Mattoon. The Monkey Man of New Delhi. War of the Worlds. "Black Peril", "Yellow Peril" and all forms of extreme xenophobia through the ages. various mass UFO reports (that exaggerated natural phenomena). the Great Fear (la Grande Peur). Kissing Bug scare. the Coke Scare Of 1999.And hundreds more

Yeah you would need to present a case from the evidence.

15?

Sorry that number was inaccurate. It is more than that

The upnishads were formed with 200+ collections of independent Sanskrit literature from across large, untraversable (at the time) geographical boundaries which refer to a god who looks like a monkey.

Once you have established this monkey exists then we'll talk. Jesus existence is well established, the claims are about something that either did or did not happen. different to saying something exists.
Also the accounts of Jesus may be fewer than 200 but they are detailed. So a link to the source to this claim, so I can get back to you on that.

You make it seem like we can be certain that the accounts in the bible were written independently. It has been an ongoing debate and we can never be sure.

Also note: The gospels were almost exclusively written by Jesus’ supporters , starting 40 years AFTER his crucifixion

Correction 20 years (and if you trace the sources using New Testament chronology, you get material within 2 years).
I read the Gospels and think Peter was one of the most absolute drop-kicks, even got called Satan by Jesus. (criteria of embarrassment)

Also that is much better than other things we accept as history. New Testament is one of the most quality preserved texts and close to it.
The controversy - it is religious!!! shock horror!

Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
I am not verifying the claim is necessarily true, but that an argument that has enough evidence to the contrary has not been put forth.
Proof for the law of conservation of energy is abundant. Evidence suggest that people can not return from the dead, or turn sticks into snakes.

I can write a book, state “Steve returned back from the dead”. This evidence isn’t very compelling…

Compelling does not equal false. I am not compelled by other explanations.

Who is Steve? What is his relation to you? What is the state you were in at Steve's death? Were you present at his death, or know people who were?Did you see his funeral where he laid them? These are many questions that you haven't answered. I am not that naive.
Steve is my mate. I was healthy and in my book I claim all 500 people were.
In my book I claim I saw his funeral and where he was laid.
Questions answered. Has nothing to do with what I am trying to demonstrate

Did you establish that Steve existed? As i have mentioned we have reason to believe that Jesus existed and he died. We know a worldwide movement began in 33AD, with the tradition of Jesus being raised being established by 35AD. That is very difficult to dispute.

You can’t use accounts in the bible to prove the accounts in the bible. You need to give me some sort of external, independent eyewitness accounts, not a verse which states 500 people saw Steve/Jesus die.

The Bible is not one single homogeneous text like the Quran is. They are independent eyewitnesses.

Yes. I apply widely accepted scientific principles such as the law of conservation of energy before accepting a fact which disputes it.

See my first reply. I apply the same principles in generality as well. But I do not use it as you do, to be quite frank, to say it is impossible, or that we should just ignore it.

 

[dan964]

anyways it is late/early may I say. I don't have the time to tidy up what I have written.

pick one topic and we'll address that at a time.

 

[firebrace1]

because god gives us free will, we can make our own decision which decides if your accepted into heaven or sent to hell. if you deny him he will deny you.

 

[jackyjack96]

It's impossible to prove that God does or does not exist...still I'd argue no because human's construct ideologies...

If you look at the course of human history we've had hundreds of different kinds of religions, deities, and spiritualities. Religions depend on the social context of the time. Plus often people believe in God because it's been passed on as a social "tradition" or it offers certainty, or acts as a medicine for the people.

We've had animism, polytheism, monotheism...there will be something new in the future.

Plus when we say God what do we mean by God? And who's God? You could argue that the universe is spiritual in the way that it creates new stars galaxies, life as we know it on Earth...is existence itself Godly?

 

[natnat1995]

Humans create God! It's that simple

 

[Squar3root]

 

[dan964]

Humans create God! It's that simple

yeah nah;
do you have any evidence for that claim?

 

[dan964]

he will probably think you are trying to brainwash him if you try to prove him wrong

 

[Drdusk]

I can't believe I just saw this!

God does not exist!!

 

[dan964]

I can't believe I just saw this!

God does not exist!!

a wee bit late to the party
so tell us about this atheism Patrick
also define terms:

what do you mean by God.
what do you mean by exist.

(what do you mean by does - silly question)

 

[Drdusk]

a wee bit late to the party
so tell us about this atheism Patrick
also define terms:

what do you mean by God.
what do you mean by exist.

(what do you mean by does - silly question)

God being a creator and ruler, a superhuman being or spirit with the power to create The Universe etc.

By definition 'nothing' can not exist. Therefore what is left is existence. We are a very very small part of existence.

 

[idkkdi]

God being a creator and ruler, a superhuman being or spirit with the power to create The Universe etc.

By definition 'nothing' can not exist. Therefore what is left is existence. We are a very very small part of existence.

10/10 Proof.

 

[dan964]

God being a creator and ruler with the power to create the Universe etc, a superhuman being or spirit

Interesting you said here a being (or spirit); not an eternal force (or an endless universe). How does one study the essence of something, outside of the scope of science (assumption a rudimentary definition of science: empirical studies based on assumption that the laws of nature are fairly constant)?

Another interesting point, why the 'superhuman' component? Just curious what thought went into this.

By definition 'nothing' can not exist. Therefore what is left is existence.

Nothing is a very flaky and relative concept to the context.
Depends on what you mean by nothing - it would have to be completely devoid of everything including mathematical concepts and all physical laws to be an absolute nothing (which is mind-boggling inconceivable).

So probing detail "what do you mean by what is left?"

We are a very very small part of existence.

Scientifically (which makes no moral/value judgements btw), yes.

 

[dan964]

10/10 Proof.

hardly, it has an ambiguous definition of 'nothing'. Nothing on a bank statement very different to no money in the whole world. Scope is important.
It presumes the only things that can exist, must be things that exist; often with an underlying assumption that only things we can see/touch/empirically observe must exist.

Atheism i find tends to approach God like he is an iceberg, no wonder you conclude he cannot exist.

Anyways he still needs to define 'exist'

 

[idkkdi]

hardly, it has an ambiguous definition of 'nothing'. Nothing on a bank statement very different to no money in the whole world. Scope is important.
It presumes the only things that can exist, must be things that exist; often with an underlying assumption that only things we can see/touch/empirically observe must exist.

Atheism i find tends to approach God like he is an iceberg, no wonder you conclude he cannot exist.

Anyways he still needs to define 'exist'

1. Where did God come from if he created everything?
2. Why do diseases etc. still exist given an all-loving god?
3. Are you talking about a God which is not a "human god"?
4. Given that God doesn't concern himself with human matters, what would allow for us to say he exists?
5. Where would God have gotten his powers from? Did another God give him those powers? Paradox?
6. Does it really matter for us to concern ourselves with something that we can't know when there's actually important stuff at hand?

 

[Drdusk]

Interesting you said here a being (or spirit); not an eternal force (or an endless universe). How does one study the essence of something, outside of the scope of science (assumption a rudimentary definition of science: empirical studies based on assumption that the laws of nature are fairly constant)?

Well as far as I know from the religions that I have studied, God is considered a being(or spirit). There are many different interpretations of these and all of which are different. If God was an external force then I would not consider that to be a God, it would just be a force of Nature. It's the same as saying Gravity is 'God'. We can't see Gravity, we can only observe it's effects on everything around us, that doesn't mean it is a God doing something but rather a construct of nature. A unique force that exists due to Mass and Energy.

Take Christianity for example, Demons are regularly described as being 'evil spirits' and many have had different Physical interpretations, so one would think God is the opposite of that as a 'Good spirit'.

Really the idea of there being a 'God' by the definition of a being(or spirit) is not at all proven due to what it takes to prove something in the world of Science. It is nothing but a theory and one can not say that theory is certainly right(or wrong) but it cannot just be accepted and said right when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest so. The bible is not evidence because it is a man made creation.

Anyone can come up with a theory for how everything came to be but it will not be accepted unless of course it is proven. Now some people may have 100% faith in the god described by their religion but it can not be used to prove or show anything if it came to court for example.