Universal laws not being necessarily universal
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…”My point is that people are studying that very question of whether the laws of physics are constant. They haven't proven anything yet.
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.
Word OriginThe Hebrew term ‘ebed' translated slave or usually servant, designates a range of social and economic roles.
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).
Here are the most widely used and accepted transaltionsConcepts may be slightly different (some translations use the word bond-servant instead in places, where it is sometimes translated slavery).
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)
Really doesn’t seem like it is out of context here, or anything to do with Israels unfaithfulness.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.
“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)
WrongThis 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.
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
As I have said repeatedly, you imply that we have free-will and that humans reject god.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.
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.
Sigh.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.
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.
Three kids suffering the exact disease is better than four.Suffering isn't a quantitative thing, it is a qualitative thing, most people will suffer.
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.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.
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. )
Cool!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.
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)
I will be VERY generous, and assume every single person who identifies as Christian is saved.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)
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(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 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]
What constitutes “enough”?(
(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.
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!!”
Do you, or do you not have a justification for why god allows for genetic life threatening diseases to occur in newborns?No that is not correct. The situation/explanation I have is general, rather than specifics.
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”
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)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.
A parent giving their kids ‘free choice’ to do illegal drugs is not honourable at all…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.
Dan964- Moderator and mindreader.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.
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 missed the point entirelyYes 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.
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.
You directly stated that “The laws of physics are not always universal”.I don't dispute this statement.
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?
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?”That is very sly and presumptious, you called them universal, and so asking if they are universal, is a circular question?
The miracles mentioned in the bible had a time and place. I don’t see your point.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).
Can you provide me links to some data/research that is strongly indicative that the law of conservation of matter is not universal?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.
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.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.
By the way, how do you know that 500 people were present?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.
Dan: I believe that the resurrection documented in the bible has occurred
Sam: What evidence do you have?
Dan: Other verses in the bible
What if I tell you, not only 500, but 100,000 eyewitnesses can be mistaken at the same time
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
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.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).
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
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 am not verifying the claim is necessarily true, but that an argument that has enough evidence to the contrary has not been put forth.
I can write a book, state “Steve returned back from the dead”. This evidence isn’t very compelling…
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 demonstrateWho 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.
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
Yes. I apply widely accepted scientific principles such as the law of conservation of energy before accepting a fact which disputes it.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.
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.
Agreed. Was talking about your previous posts.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.
14.7 KB Views: 25