Does God exist? (51 Viewers)

[dan964]

Might be good if I summarise what I said, because addressing individual comments is going nowhere.
I may not address particular points/arguments, but the gist of your questions/objections and things generally raised.
This might make it a little better to handle.

 

[dan964]

If I haven't addressed it check the longer reply...

A different way of approaching your same study:
View attachment doco5.pdf

basically if the observed data exists, which you presuppose it does, then you cannot accept the conclusion (C2), that Jesus did not break the laws of nature.
Only if you assume that the laws of nature cannot not ever broken, as opposed, in general they are not (the latter implies possibility of exemption/exception). I would hold to the latter.

The whole question is whether the resurrection is possible as well as whether it did happen. If you assume it did happen, then it has to be possible. If you assume it is impossible, then you already have your conclusion.

errata
(C4) implies that L is empty and M is the whole set. (C3) implies that L is not empty.

 

[SammyT123]

Let's just start again. I agree, the message has been lost

you claimed
"> Independent eyewitness accounts of the account, including 500 individuals --> this disproves the hallucination theory"

1. Can you provide a link to the 500 documented independent eyewitness accounts?

2. Can you comment on why you think your reading of the text is better than AIG in this specific link which claims the Earth is only 6000 years old
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/


3. Can you , in as few words as possible, explain to me why god created an Earth in which millions upon millions suffer from torture/starvation etc? No offence, but you complicate things by asking for specific definitions of words such as "cruel" and quote extremely long passages of the bible when you can just reference them.

4. Why do you reject the old testament? This holy book condones rape, slavery, murder etc.
It is the same god. The same god that most Christians claim is omniscient. If a god is really omniscient, why are we changing the rules in a divinely inspired book?

 

[dan964]

Let's just start again. I agree, the message has been lost

you claimed
"> Independent eyewitness accounts of the account, including 500 individuals --> this disproves the hallucination theory"

1. Can you provide a link to the 500 documented independent eyewitness accounts?

2. Can you comment on why you think your reading of the text is better than AIG in this specific link which claims the Earth is only 6000 years old
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/


3. Can you , in as few words as possible, explain to me why god created an Earth in which millions upon millions suffer from torture/starvation etc? No offense, but you complicate things by asking for specific definitions of words such as "cruel" and quote extremely long passages of the bible when you can just reference them.

4. Why do you reject the old testament? This holy book condones rape, slavery, murder etc.
It is the same god. The same god that most Christians claim is omniscient. If a god is really omniscient, why are we changing the rules in a divinely inspired book?

No offense, but (4) is a strawman, (1) is misleading, re (2) addressing particular sites, I may not address that particular question, mainly because you have to interact with what is here.
We have addressed (3) at length and so I will try to present a summary instead.

 

[dan964]

I will address #2 first.

There is one simple reason why anyone would reject the readings of AIG or any one else.
The method Christians use to study a text, is called exegesis. Rather than imported our ideas into the text, we try to study and see what the text is saying for what
the author intended. (Note this is contrary to the methods of advanced english with all their critical readings). So it is a framework.

You look at context, author's intention, audience, structure, genre, etc. basically looking at it like literature. The key is the intended meaning (evangelicals), we also use a biblical theology of fitting the particular text with respect to other authoritative texts in terms of a span from Genesis to Revelation.

The biggest problem I have with AIG, is they are trying to extrapolate answers to questions (such as age of the Earth), that the Biblical authors couldn't have cared less about, and lose focus on what the theological themes that are raised in Genesis 1 & 2 for instance.

We do also consider things outside the Bible as well. Christians will find as much as is allowable, agreement with science. But it is really contentious problem in of itself.

Note: I recently studied the book of Revelation, and the way people interpret that book generally shapes how they interpret the rest of the Bible, fyi. Genesis 1 & 2 read similarly to Revelation in bits and so a AIG-type of interpretation falls flat.

Some problems I would raise with AIG, using purely the Biblical data:
Firstly, why is Genesis seemingly a "parody" of other ancient myths.
Secondly, AIG seems to glaze over or miss some the significant structural and textual details (such as the structure of the text is 3 and 3).
Thirdly, the seventh day doesn't end.
Fourthly, disparities between the first and second account (Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2), mean that the chronology as applied by AIG is stuffed or is incoherent. There are ways to synthesize the material, but AIG synthesis fails.
Fifthly, AIG does not account for the amount of time required for Adam to name the animals.
Sixthly, AIG does not account for the amount of time
Seventhly, even atheists observe, markers of time only created on fourth "day". This is a major obstacle within the text itself to AIG's interpretation.


So yes there are several many reasons why AIG's interpretation is not quite ok. The other issue is their argument tactics in the way they attack other Christians, is not great either.

dan

 

[dan964]

1. Can you provide a link to the 500 documented independent eyewitness accounts?

Summary of argument/answer: Not required to prove/verify claim.

Clarification:
My original claim was itself a sketch " Independent eyewitness accounts of the account, including 500 individuals --> this disproves the hallucination theory"". My counter-argument is that documented records of the 500 witnesses is not necessary/required to disprove and cause into greater doubt (than the resurrection hypothesis), the hallucination theory, to demonstrate such I will explain a bit further (maybe as an attachment)

Claim: 500 individuals saw Jesus at the same time (as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7)
Corollary: If that claim is true, then either the hallucination theory is false, a more tenuous claim, or you have a much bigger miracle than the resurrection itself.

my line of reasoning:

A1: New Testament can be studied as a text to extract useful data. Assessment of this data still needed of course.

P1: Overview of data itself
- A general consensus wrt, source criticism applied to 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, suggest an early tradition/origin of the material used by Paul, even as early as 35AD.
- This eliminates idea of later fabrication, or puts huge dent.

P2: Data from witness testimony that seems at odds with hallucination theories
- Multiple witnesses of different backgrounds, genders and personality types as well as different occupations.
- Character transformation of disciples from being pathetic, to being driven (especially Peter); not to mention radical conversion of Paul.
- Disciples not expecting resurrection. (Often prompting required for a "collective hallucination")
- Occurrence of appearances over 40 days.
- Hallucination fails in itself to explain authorities unable to produce body.

This is just a sketch btw.

 

[dan964]

Addressing #3 (part of #4 is addressed here) again a sketch. Maybe I'll come back and address...

1. Ultimate purpose of creation (Ephesians 1:10) is to unite all people under Jesus. Creation is made for him. Jesus is always part of God's plan.
That is all the information we are given (not entirely true, but for sake of brevity)

2. Sin complicates the simplicity of understanding God's plan, because God's plan now accounts for human sin, and the general broken-ness of the world as a result of sin.
Again since God cannot be manipulated by humans, consistently this means God's plan originally incorporated somehow the fall of humanity and creation; and God's overall plan over all history to bring about restoration.


To answer the specifics of your question.
1. No when God created the world, he did not create it with the suffering of many.
2. Paul explains that through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, as a result the world has been captive to sin. (Romans 5:12-14).

Curses were applied to Adam and his wife in Genesis 3, as punishment for their sin, and as a quite a potent reminder of not to disobey God.

Paul uses the image of ruling in several places (e.g. Romans 5:14, Romans 6:16-23) that sin/death reigned.

Paul also describes how God in judgement gives up people over to their sin and disobedience, over to the desires of their hearts away from God (c.f. Romans 1:18-31)

The goal (c.f. Romans 8, verse number slips off top of head), is that creation would be liberated from bondage to decay. So God has frustrated the world, frustrated the plans of evil men to prosper, and ultimately exalts his servant Jesus, in an irony coronation (the cross), and then vindicates him by raising him from the dead.

He uses such an unexpected way of doing it. Yes. But that is exactly often how God works. In unexpected ways. It is kind of so that we wait/depend on him.

Back, but even from Genesis 3:15 (the offspring). The centrepiece of God's plan is Jesus, the whole Bible is about Jesus (wlog), who would suffer and die on the cross.
That is the timeline of books in the Bible (library) as heading towards and figuring out who is that seed. Through God chooses some of scum of the earth, ultimately so that it would be clearer that it is God and not the strength of man. (summary sketch).

This then becomes broaden from Jesus, to all those who trust in Jesus.

 

[dan964]

4. Why do you reject the old testament? This holy book condones rape, slavery, murder etc.
It is the same god. The same god that most Christians claim is omniscient. If a god is really omniscient, why are we changing the rules in a divinely inspired book?

again a sketch for time reasons:
1. No I don't reject Old Testament. Strawman/misleading.

2. Mention of instances does not equal condoning. Specific examples I can address over PM (rather than have a massive mess as before).
e.g. Genesis 38 mentions incest for instance, doesn't condone it. Several other examples of where such things are recorded, not necessarily condoned. (Maybe PM a list of specific examples as one would have to know context).

I can report on terrorism does not mean I condone it. I would need to look at what specific examples you had in mind.

3. Key Q: Why was the law given?

Firstly, the law was given to Israel, big important point, to set them apart as holy. Tragically they failed, of course, as expected, as planned, but out of Israel, comes Messiah (Jesus) who fulfills the law on our behalf. But that does not mean we do evil/live lawlessly, much of the New testament argues against that (wlog).

So main thing is context is important.
The Old Testament unfortunately is often taken out of context, and Christians always read it through the lens of Jesus. (that by the way is the interpretation metric I use when reading the Bible, and another reason why I reject AIG as well). Law is also taken out of context.

The main thing is the bible timeline, and the law kind of complicates things a little. Paul argues in Romans 5, that the law was given so that sin might increase, or show us our sin (Romans 3:20). He argues that no-one can keep the law in Galatians. (In fact his whole argument in Galatians, is why faith/promise > the law, and he uses Abraham to show that).

Paul argues that law is a guardian until Christ. After Christ came, the law was rendered void. But that said, that is not saying Christians could do whatever they want. Paul in Romans 6, describes Christians as being "slaves" to Christ rather than "slaves" to sin (using a cultural e.g. of slavery, which is not identical to slavery necessarily as we would understand it)

Sorry for a sketch.

 

[dan964]

pro tip: best to have a discussion in person.

I am busy with exams, so that is all you will get. PM any specific questions, probably won't have time to answer; within reason.
(no texas sharp-shooters). But it will get me thinking at least.

~dan964

 

[SammyT123]

Summary of argument/answer: Not required to prove/verify claim.

What is the best evidence you have to support that Jesus returned from the dead? This is my biggest question, please do not ignore it.

individuals saw Jesus at the same time (as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7)
If that claim is true, then either the hallucination theory is false, a more tenuous claim, or you have a much bigger miracle than the resurrection itself.

Can’t just assume it is true. Sorry
500 people hallucinating is not more tenuous than the universal laws of physics being , well not universal…

- A general consensus wrt, source criticism applied to 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, suggest an early tradition/origin of the material used by Paul, even as early as 35AD.
- This eliminates idea of later fabrication, or puts huge dent.

I don’t see how Paul using early material eliminates the idea of fabrication
Can you link me to a historical analysis of this general consensus or claim?

P2: Data from witness testimony that seems at odds with hallucination theories

Link me to these witness claims. How many were there?
Note, do not assume the claims in the bible are correct to prove that the claims in the bible are correct. This is known as a circular proof


I can write a book , state that Sam resurrect from the dead. I can then write a passage in the book saying 500 independent people witnessed it. See the problem?

1. Ultimate purpose of creation (Ephesians 1:10) is to unite all people under Jesus. Creation is made for him. Jesus is always part of God's plan.

1. Can be done without suffering , torture and rape. This is assuming god has the power to and is not impotent

2. Sin complicates the simplicity of understanding God's plan, because God's plan now accounts for human sin, and the general broken-ness of the world as a result of sin.

The world is broken because god decided it should be. He created the world ,as he says, all-knowingly. Rape, torture and billions in poverty are all part of gods plan , right?

Again since God cannot be manipulated by humans, consistently this means God's plan originally incorporated somehow the fall of humanity and creation; and God's overall plan over all history to bring about restoration.

Overall plan of god: Suffering torture rape etc so humanity falls, and then we can bring about restoration and after thousands of years of cruelty 11/10 plan
All of this so we can unite with our loving god. What a humble need and peaceful means of attaining it.

I can improve gods plan without changing very much at all. Keep it the same and ensure 1 less person dies of starvation.

1. No when God created the world, he did not create it with the suffering of many.

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

Curses were applied to Adam and his wife in Genesis 3, as punishment for their sin, and as a quite a potent reminder of not to disobey God.

God: I will create a world, knowing that there will be sin in this world. I will then punish people for it. Lovely

I can report on terrorism does not mean I condone it. I would need to look at what specific examples you had in mind.

I will do a few at a time

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.

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)

D) O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"(Psalm 137:8–9 NRSV)

 

[cosmo 2]

shut up nerds

 

[Queenroot]

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/7c6zlf/story_made_a_girl_cry_tonight/

 

[dan964]

What is the best evidence you have to support that Jesus returned from the dead? This is my biggest question, please do not ignore it.
Can’t just assume it is true. Sorry
500 people hallucinating is not more tenuous than the universal laws of physics being , well not universal…

Universal laws not being necessarily universal, e.g.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~mmurphy/research/are-natures-laws-really-universal/

And secondly universal laws can be defined in account for purposed-miracles, which for the purposes of scientific study aren't going to affect your conclusions, due to low occurence. Again which is better, a model that tries to account for the existence of outliers, or a model that ignores them, because they are low occurence. Well they may be low occurence but the pragmatic applications are significant. No Christian rejects the laws of physics. They do not necessarily agree that everything is reducible to laws of physics in a universal sense, even though we do agree, that such laws WLOG do hold.

500 people hallucinating itself would be as much if not more a violation, the science and the evidence of the appearances does not suggest a mass-hallucination, a collective-hallucination is unlikely. Maybe you are thinking mass-hysteria.

I don’t see how Paul using early material eliminates the idea of fabrication
Can you link me to a historical analysis of this general consensus or claim?

sure will do. I will link this site for now, as it references and quotes a range of secular/Christian scholarship on the topic:
https://beliefmap.org/bible/1-corinthians/15-creed/date/#pauls-conversion

Most scholars can date Paul's conversion to within 2 years of the crucifixion, so that puts a very early tradition saying that Jesus appeared to 500 people. It doesn't necessarily make it true, but it is still the data we have.

It removes a bit of ambiguity that this was made up later, considering that it would be consistently passed on for 2-17 years. Yes the writers of the new testament could be wrong or slanted, but I am not assuming they are morons, deluded (although it would seem unlikely that someone would die for something knowingly false, considering the state also they were in immediately after the crucifixion).

Link me to these witness claims. How many were there?
Note, do not assume the claims in the bible are correct to prove that the claims in the bible are correct. This is known as a circular proof

Note we cannot assume any claim is completely correct, but you do the opposite, you assume falsehood, because you take the bible as fiction. As any student of history, would do, we can study as if it is useful, without necessarily drawing the same conclusions about spirituality or religion that is does.

Either Christianity is the most elaborate and fanciful hoax on the planet, or you have something that is massively significant. I go with the later.

I can write a book , state that Sam resurrect from the dead. I can then write a passage in the book saying 500 independent people witnessed it. See the problem?

Except that Paul borrowed from established tradition from 2 years on. So false analogy.
We have the 4 gospels, Paul, in several writings, Acts, pretty much all independently writing of each other within 10 years of the event. These are some of the more detailed accounts.

Then there are the writings of church fathers in the first/second century, other writings by Roman and Jewish sources date around that time period.

1. Can be done without suffering , torture and rape. This is assuming god has the power to and is not impotent

Presumptious.

The world is broken because god decided it should be. He created the world ,as he says, all-knowingly. Rape, torture and billions in poverty are all part of gods plan , right?

False equivocation. You need to read it in context of full sketch argument. #2 argument.

Overall plan of god: Suffering torture rape etc so humanity falls, and then we can bring about restoration and after thousands of years of cruelty 11/10 plan

Sarcasm/narkiness ignored. But it is the wrong order. The cause of suffering/torture/rape is the result of the fall of humanity. You are attributing in general, something that isn't a result of God's plan.

All of this so we can unite with our loving god. What a humble need and peaceful means of attaining it.

I can improve gods plan without changing very much at all. Keep it the same and ensure 1 less person dies of starvation.

Yeah I highly doubt that.
I highly doubt you could provide eternal life to anyone, but I digress.

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

There is your fundamental assumption in bold.

You assume that the reason God doesn't stop is for some sick reason. 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!.

God: I will create a world, knowing that there will be sin in this world. I will then punish people for it. Lovely

yeah, humanity has to be held accountable for their actions, for their torture of other humans, and manipulation/abuse/sex trade etc.

The only person capable of carrying out that justice completely and fairly is God.

Your argument:
A. God creates humans
B. Humans sin
C. God doesn't prevent (B)
D. Therefore by (A) and (C), God must be author of sin.

Problem: God has not determined human's sin. He has simply set the logical consequences for following him and rejecting him.
1. Accept/follow and worship God >> receive blessing (spiritual blessings c.f. Ephesians 1).
2. Reject God >> receive/live under curse (c.f. Genesis 3).

And that is regardless of whether it is individual (as we think in our western culture), or collectively as a community.

for example, although context is important Deuteronomy 13:1-5ff
God is seeing who and whether people will acknowledge him and seek him, that is why he allows false prophets and all that jazz. But the false prophet is still to be put to death. And the same goes for a community that rebels.

God takes the fact that we don't take him seriously or we ignore/reject him, pretty seriously.


Other notes:
Firstly, God is allowed to take as long he takes, because (c.f. Romans 9:22-23). What if God decided to be patient with those destined to destruction (they are destined because they reject him always), and patient with those who would repent and turn back to him??? (c.f. 2 Peter 3:9)

God is on a very different time schedule to yours.

In terms of your previous remark, I highly doubt that you would be able to come up with a plan, that allows for the maximum number of the people to rightly honour/exalt you as creator, gives them eternal life, saves them from their own evil.





I will do a few at a time ������

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.

cultural context. Passage for (A) taken from Exodus 21 (for those reading), (B) taken from Leviticus 25, so both part of the Torah. The first passage mentions this:
"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found sin possession of him, shall be put to death."

The Hebrew term ‘ebed' translated slave or usually servant, designates a range of social and economic roles.
WLOG, it is akin to "indentured servitude", not to the modern version of slavery as you would be aware of (where people are forced or tricked/manipulated into slavery). Sometimes there is a retrieval ethic at play as well.

Concepts may be slightly different (some translations use the word bond-servant instead in places, where it is sometimes translated slavery). A bit of a sketch/rough answer though.

Also a good explanation is that many of the laws related to the political establishment of Israel as a nation, God's people specifically tied to a specific land. At this (as in our) point in history, because of Jesus, God's people instead are united by his Spirit.

Also take care, sometimes these are retrieval ethics at play (redeeming the best out of the situation).

(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)

Pretty sure you missed the fact, that firstly your quotation is out of context for this one.
here is linked the full chapter: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+13

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.

D) O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"(Psalm 137:8–9 NRSV)

"This Psalm is not advocating that people smash children on rocks. It is a song of lamentation, crying out to God for deliverance. This Psalm shows the truth of human depravity and how sometimes people wish and even pray for, harm upon their enemies."

answers are sketches. but I do not draw the same conclusions.

 

[SammyT123]

Universal laws not being necessarily universal, e.g.http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~mmurphy/research/are-natures-laws-really-universal/

This is very misleading . Read the article before you draw that conclusion. The KECK results showed some variation in the absorption of alpha particles above Hawaii. The author initially believed that the variation in absorption was due to smaller values of alpha, and then got different results pointing to larger values of alpha. He admits that this is either attributed to chance (4%) or systematic errors.
Furthermore, this is by no means a universal law, at most it is an area of uncertainty which may be explained by string theory.
Quote from the author: Our results are by no means conclusive. We have thoroughly searched for other possible explanations for our results. Research science is constantly plagued by the problem of “systematic errors”. These errors mimic your result or somehow destroy it. They are notoriously hard to identify. No one should really believe that constants are varying until another type of experiment confirms the results. Possibilities for other types of experiments include making very precise measurements of the fluctuations seen on the Cosmic Microwave Background sky — the radiation left over from the big bang. Another possibility is to measure very accurately the abundances of the elements that were produced in the big bang. But these methods have their own problems and systematic errors.

No Christian rejects the laws of physics. They do not necessarily agree that everything is reducible to laws of physics in a universal sense, even though we do agree, that such laws WLOG do hold.

Are the universal laws of physics , universal? Yes or no?
You can’t say “we agree with science and the universal laws of physics always hold true, except for miracles in the bible tho…”

500 people hallucinating itself would be as much if not more a violation

No, it would not. Violating the universal laws of physics is much more severe.
BTW, how do you know it was 500 people? There are no independent sources to verify this claim.

Most scholars can date Paul's conversion to within 2 years of the crucifixion, so that puts a very early tradition saying that Jesus appeared to 500 people. It doesn't necessarily make it true, but it is still the data we have.

Circular proof. Do not reference the bible to verify claims in the bible.
I can write a book, state “Steve returned back from the dead”. This evidence isn’t very compelling…

Note we cannot assume any claim is completely correct, but you do the opposite, you assume falsehood, because you take the bible as fiction. As any student of history, would do, we can study as if it is useful, without necessarily drawing the same conclusions about spirituality or religion that is does.

Wrong way around bud. Not assuming any claim is correct or incorrect. As any student of history would do, I study it as a piece of literature or history.

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.

Either Christianity is the most elaborate and fanciful hoax on the planet, or you have something that is massively significant. I go with the later.

Either Islam is the most elaborate and fanciful hoax on the planet, or you have something that is massively significant. I go with the later.
Either Hinduism is the most elaborate and fanciful hoax on the planet, or you have something that is massively significant. I go with the later.

N = 100

Except that Paul borrowed from established tradition from 2 years on. So false analogy.We have the 4 gospels, Paul, in several writings, Acts, pretty much all independently writing of each other within 10 years of the event. These are some of the more detailed accounts.

What’s your point? There are literally HUNDREDS of accounts (in the form of writing or engraving) within the time period of the existence of Ra, the Egyptian sun god. All of these were independent of each other, and very detailed.

What do 4 , supposedly independent accounts, have to do with anything?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarab_(artifact)

Presumptious.

Ultimate purpose of creation (Ephesians 1:10) is to unite all people under Jesus. Can be done without suffering , torture and rape. This is assuming god has the power to and is not impotent
Can you provide some sort of reasoning? If god has the power to do anything, then he can surely unite us with Jesus without putting us through thousands of years of hell

The cause of suffering/torture/rape is the result of the fall of humanity. You are attributing in general, something that isn't a result of God's plan.

Overall plan of god: Suffering torture rape etc so humanity falls, and then we can bring about restoration and after thousands of years of cruelty 11/10 plan
God knew that if he created humans, we would go through this suffering. Yet he still did it.
God , if he is all-powerful, can unite us with Jesus and end suffering.

You say that the suffering isn’t part of his plan. Which one is it then?
i) Gods plan has failed and this is why we are in suffering. Poor management
ii) God simply is not all knowing and did not know that mass suffering would occur
iii) God, before he created the universe, knew that suffering would happen, but he went along with it anyway. “I will create subjects, knowing that billions and billions will suffer enormously, but some very few of them will unite with Jesus in the end. Hurray!”
All of this so we can unite with our loving god. What a humble need and peaceful means of attaining it.

Yeah I highly doubt that.
I highly doubt you could provide eternal life to anyone, but I digress.

You fail to understand my point
God, could change his plan a little, by making one less person die from poverty (maybe even two if he is feeling extra generous). Why doesn’t he do it?

You assume that the reason God doesn't stop is for some sick reason.

It is quite clear that billions are suffering. No need to assume anything.

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!.

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!!”

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”
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.

yeah, humanity has to be held accountable for their actions, for their torture of other humans, and manipulation/abuse/sex trade etc.

A humanity which only exists because god created it. God knew these atrocities would occur, and decided to
1) Go through with the plan anyway
2) Not do anything about it, when he clearly can (all powerful)

The only person capable of carrying out that justice completely and fairly is God.

Bob and Bill are identical in every single regard, except for one. Bill prays to Allah, and Bob prays to Jesus, simply because of the area they were born in. Bob and Bill are honest, kind and hardworking people. Bill is going to hell tho, because the Christian god judges this to be completely fair.

Your argument:
A. God creates humans
B. Humans sin
C. God doesn't prevent (B)
D. Therefore by (A) and (C), God must be author of sin.

Wrong.

A – God is all powerful
B – God, being the humble guy he is, wants to create a universe with beings who will serve him
C – God creates a universe engineered such that we reject him, and suffer rape torture etc..
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. Still a bit of a dick move.

Problem: God has not determined human's sin. He has simply set the logical consequences for following him and rejecting him.

Correct!
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. )

God takes the fact that we don't take him seriously or we ignore/reject him, pretty seriously.

I can tell. My mate Bill, who rejects him purely due to probability alone (I.e being born in a muslim family in Pakistan), would still suffer and die in hell.

Firstly, God is allowed to take as long he takes

I can tell. He could hurry the fuck up and save all the good people now, but he won’t: p
He hasn’t for a few thousand years…

In terms of your previous remark, I highly doubt that you would be able to come up with a plan, that allows for the maximum number of the people to rightly honour/exalt you as creator, gives them eternal life, saves them from their own evil.

I never claimed I could do that
An all power-full god , can, by definition do all of the above. He clearly is failing
I can give God a tip tho. God can just save one extra person, such as Bill (an innocent and caring dude who just happens to be born into a different religion).
I’ll let you finish your sketch on the old testament

 

[dan964]

To answer your last remark first of course

I never claimed I could do that
An all power-full god , can, by definition do all of the above. He clearly is failing
I can give God a tip tho. God can just save one extra person, such as Bill (an innocent and caring dude who just happens to be born into a different religion).
I’ll let you finish your sketch on the old testament

By sketch, I mean argument kept brief. In general it would be hard to know the exact specifics of every single case. But generally when it comes to reading the Old Testament, we have
to recognize when particular commands/instructions are addressed to us (to carry out), most are written for the context of a political nation Israel, some are written as retrieval ethics (such as this bad thing has happened, and how to redeem the best of the situation). Unfortunately Israel was not very good at keeping the commandments anyways.



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.

 

[dan964]

Part 2

Your logic is

A – God is all powerful
B – God, being the humble guy he is, wants to create a universe with beings who will serve him
C – God creates a universe engineered such that we reject him, and suffer rape torture etc..

A - not disputed
B - incoherent. God is by definition humble and worthy of worship, praise, service; but God wants actually a loving relationship and to know his creation.
C - incoherent in parts, and not demonstrated. As I have repeatedly said, God did not engineer the universe so that we would reject him.

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

Note, personally, Christians don't mind suffering, because for us, we share in Christ's sufferings, and hence his vindication and resurrection. And suffering produces perseverance, character and hope.

To answer specific cases of suffering I wouldn't have an answer, why this number of people suffer in this particular way. But the one thing I can guarantee is that all will suffer, and a lot the inequity of suffering itself such as poverty etc. is propagated and exaggerated even further by human selfishness.


[/quote]

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.

Your assumption is that God has to do something for some "sick reason". Give me a specific reason. Simply making a claim of conspiracy is not substantiated. I have given mine why I don't think it is a "sick reason", it is a "just reason", it seems "sick" because you don't like it. Suffering ultimately is a question of justice.

My reason is to show that he is God, with divine power and all-powerful, even despite things that seem like he isn't
Romans 8:20-21: creation subjected to frustration (why is there still suffering), in hope that it will be liberated.
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).
1 Corinthians 1:28-29: God choose the weak and foolish things to shame those who think they are somebody before him.

Goal:

Ephesians 1:9-10: all things under Christ, God's appointed and chosen king, priest (mediator).
Isaiah 45:22-23 c.f. Philippians 2:6-11: Every knee will bow to God, some in shame, others will hope in him.

 

[dan964]

Part 3:

Bob and Bill are identical in every single regard, except for one. Bill prays to Allah, and Bob prays to Jesus, simply because of the area they were born in. Bob and Bill are honest, kind and hardworking people. Bill is going to hell tho, because the Christian god judges this to be completely fair.

3 things wrong with this analogy:
- Bob isn't necessarily a Christian, by the information you have given.
Praying to Jesus does not equal saved. Also there are lots more differences if Bill is a devout Muslim and Bob is a devout/believing Christian.
- Secondly it doesn't matter how religious devout you are, your response to Jesus in terms of faith vs. unbelief is what determines the outcome, not because faith itself is special
because the starting position is of condemnation.

The only way out of that position is through Jesus, Allah (which is not the same as Jesus/God in terms of the Trinity), cannot save, simple.

- Thirdly, God can still save, even through Jesus, Muslims. in fact many muslims who may have little or next to none contact with Christianity, are saved, after seeing a vision of Jesus, then reading a Bible (not saved by doing these things, but through the process of this, they believe and are saved).

 

[dan964]

A humanity which only exists because god created it. God knew these atrocities would occur, and decided to
1) Go through with the plan anyway
2) Not do anything about it, when he clearly can (all powerful)

(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.

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.

(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.

Sketch answer (meaning brevity)

 

[dan964]

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.

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. 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).

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.

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. )

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.

 

[dan964]

This is very misleading . Read the article before you draw that conclusion. The KECK results showed some variation in the absorption of alpha particles above Hawaii. The author initially believed that the variation in absorption was due to smaller values of alpha, and then got different results pointing to larger values of alpha. He admits that this is either attributed to chance (4%) or systematic errors. Furthermore, this is by no means a universal law, at most it is an area of uncertainty which may be explained by string theory.

Quote from the author: Our results are by no means conclusive. We have thoroughly searched for other possible explanations for our results. Research science is constantly plagued by the problem of “systematic errors”. These errors mimic your result or somehow destroy it. They are notoriously hard to identify. No one should really believe that constants are varying until another type of experiment confirms the results. Possibilities for other types of experiments include making very precise measurements of the fluctuations seen on the Cosmic Microwave Background sky — the radiation left over from the big bang. Another possibility is to measure very accurately the abundances of the elements that were produced in the big bang. But these methods have their own problems and systematic errors.

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

Research science is constantly plagued by the problem of “systematic errors”. These errors mimic your result or somehow destroy it. They are notoriously hard to identify. No one should really believe that constants are varying until another type of experiment confirms the results.

I don't dispute this statement.

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?
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).

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.

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.

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? You are holding to a very assertive definition of "universal" that presumes naturalism. Your mind is already made up.

500 people hallucinating itself would be as much if not more a violation

No, it would not. Violating the universal laws of physics is much more severe.
[/quote]
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.

BTW, how do you know it was 500 people? There are no independent sources to verify this claim.

Which is why I established the source of the claim in Paul's account as being an early tradition, which will we may not have a copy of itself, has been transmitted correctly into Paul's letter to 1 Corinthians. Other New Testament and early church writings are fairly consistent on the topic. We have to use the data we have.

Most scholars can date Paul's conversion to within 2 years of the crucifixion, so that puts a very early tradition saying that Jesus appeared to 500 people. It doesn't necessarily make it true, but it is still the data we have.

Circular proof. Do not reference the bible to verify claims in the bible.

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).

All we have to do is establish enough of the text as accurate (not necessarily true or authoritative), to be able to study it. One of the key lynchpins in determining the chronology and tracing the origins of the claims.

The evidence then leads us, we have to explain what happened in 33AD, that saw these claims of a resurrected Jesus, "created" or "propagated" in the first place. That is the key question here.

(Also circular proof is only really a problem for the naturalist, technically speaking. If the Bible is authoritative and word of God, persay and we appeal to another source, e.g. archeaology, science to prove it, then that to what is being appealed is a higher authority. This is not saying that circular reasoning is ok)

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. It is rather a best guess and most of textual criticism is that. It is not assuming the text is necessarily correct, but we presume first that the writers weren't morons and actually had the ability to write properly (we can study literature and other historical writings, to know that people can write, but we study to try to figure out the origins).

The origins is clear within that text, of an earlier tradition.

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

You would have to expand on your analogy. It is too simplistic.
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.

Note we cannot assume any claim is completely correct, but you do the opposite, you assume falsehood, because you take the bible as fiction. As any student of history, would do, we can study as if it is useful, without necessarily drawing the same conclusions about spirituality or religion that is does.

Wrong way around bud. Not assuming any claim is correct or incorrect. As any student of history would do, I study it as a piece of literature or history.
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.

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. 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.

Either Christianity is the most elaborate and fanciful hoax on the planet, or you have something that is massively significant. I go with the later.

Either Islam is the most elaborate and fanciful hoax on the planet, or you have something that is massively significant. I go with the later.
Either Hinduism is the most elaborate and fanciful hoax on the planet, or you have something that is massively significant. I go with the later.
N = 100

Context is key, my claim is on the resurrection of Jesus, something that had an imprint on history. We know much about the history of Islam, and Mohammed, but Islam does not have a particular event that its religion's truth stands and falls on. With Hinduism, it is also subjective and polytheistic, pluralist anyways.

It is a question of origins, the reality is

Except that Paul borrowed from established tradition from 2 years on. So false analogy.We have the 4 gospels, Paul, in several writings, Acts, pretty much all independently writing of each other within 10 years of the event. These are some of the more detailed accounts.

What’s your point? There are literally HUNDREDS of accounts (in the form of writing or engraving) within the time period of the existence of Ra, the Egyptian sun god. All of these were independent of each other, and very detailed.

I am not making an argument of existence, I am making an argument about a event, which pretty much is in it, the propagation and "origins" of Christianity itself. Jesus existence as a person is historically verified. it is reasonable to believe he said things, and did things.

We are now asking a very different question to that of existence, we are asking/examining: data in the earliest traditions which motivated the disciples from being helpless grief of the loss of Jesus at crucifixion, which is well documented across Roman/Jewish sources as well, to proclaim him as a life-giving Saviour.

The most comprehensible, coherent explanation for me, provided you deal with the assumption of naturalism somehow, is that he was raised. It is a personal assessment of the data.
So hence why it is either an elaborate hoax or something significant.

(Theologically speaking not entirely my own assessment of course)