Poll: do you believe in god?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 726 of 726 FirstFirst ... 226626676716724725726
Results 18,126 to 18,134 of 18134
Like Tree239Likes

Thread: Does God exist?

  1. #18126
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,606
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyT123 View Post
    'World leaders commit great evils, so Sam when you gain ultimate power you will use it all for your own benefit'

    Sure

    'World leaders often do great deeds, so I think, at least one person in the world would use ultimate power to help others'

    Let me pull you back to my point
    God could help those in poverty right now, and could've for hundreds of years, but he didn't

    I think it's safe to assume that if god is loving, he wouldn't let his children suffer so much


    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
    And where do you get those conclusions from?
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/
    For 2017 papers, check the thread in the Mathematics forum.

    Dan will be back 14/10/17

  2. #18127
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,606
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyT123 View Post
    Silly me for expecting an all loving God to maybe help starving dying children for a few centuries
    My expectations are wild! Sorry god

    I'm assuming you think god allows crops to grow
    It'd be nice if he let some more grow for those in poverty.
    Holy cow............
    This entire time, out of my many ,many posts you did not understand that I am accepting god exists for the sake of argument?
    You still argue from a position that God does not exist. Same reason, even I argued from your position
    I'll make it clear

    No I do not believe he exists
    see above.
    I will assume he exists to argue some of your points about the nature of god
    It's pretty sad you just realised that.
    Again, I knew you assumed that. I am simply stating that you are arguing still with a premise to disprove God, as if blemishes on his character somehow means he doesn't exist.

    I was even more confused because you didn't actually provide any real reasons for most of them, just said 'i reject it' or 'out of context' , but I digress . I don't care about that website lol
    I don't need to, most of them were strawmans, or arguments I wouldn't use. those are my reasons. you can dispute that, but they weren't addressed to you, interesting to see how you responded to that though.

    1. Does god answer the prayers of the millions of starving, faithful people in the world?
    No. They ask him specifically for food and basic necessities. They have not got them.
    Quote, source? In the case of the devout, how would you know they haven't received something more lasting than these things?

    Also, I would assume that god could just magically help everyone in poverty with a click of the fingers, but instead he will let all of them suffer for some sick reason
    No idea why he doesn't
    Hang on didn't you just say it was for some sick reason. Where is the rational in that? (rhetorical)
    I will address this when I reply to your other post in a sec.


    But you yourself said that " the Christian faith stands on that one "
    I am focusing on the resurrection, as a specific miracle.
    You are taking the original post you were responding to, out of context. The site I was quoting was making the assumption, that miraculous answers to prayer happen all the time, I was merely making a statement that Christians, like myself, do not focus so much/concerned on whether miracles as in healings occur today.


    And you went into a very lengthy explanation on the miracle of resurrection
    Again that was several posts before.

    Not generalising, just quoting you
    Out of context quoting.

    ...
    Last edited by dan964; 13 Oct 2017 at 6:23 AM.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/
    For 2017 papers, check the thread in the Mathematics forum.

    Dan will be back 14/10/17

  3. #18128
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,606
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyT123 View Post
    No idea what you are trying to argue here. Existence of God? The need for God to torture those who don't follow him?
    Always assuming an argument. I was simply describing what Jesus taught and how he would have answered why some in this world suffer in poverty. there is much more that Jesus taught on the subject, but I thought to start with that.

    I'm sure I can make friends with you, without having you sent to death
    I'm sure there are other ways to do things, especially if, you know..
    Yeah probably because I haven't done anything serious against you, maybe annoyed you at most. Our offence against God, is worse than treason.

    You are an all powerful god :/
    No I am not.
    Oh and yes, I still think it's unjust that person A suffers for the crimes of person B, when person A has not done anything wrong .
    how else do you propose to pay off debt. If someone comes and says, hey I will help you pray off that debt, and goes ahead and pays it all off.
    Is that unjust? No, that person was willing.

    Miracles have a purpose , such as to point forward to the character of god
    Sadly God won't perform a miracle with me to point me towards his character.
    Maybe you need to actually revisit the ones he has already done in Jesus, and weigh the material up to see whether it is true or not e.g.

    I consider the resurrection a miracle, as do you
    Almost all Christians do focus on that one
    Just to quote you : "the Christian faith stands on that one"
    again see last reply. it is "the" miracle. The post in question was addressing a caricature. So your reply is taking my words out of context.

    I see nothing wrong with healing all poverty and not ending the world at the same time
    then you do understand. the world is under a curse, the curse of sin, that is why there are problems.
    when the curse of sin is finally and fully broken. that can only happen at the end of the world (as we know it).

    If God was to do as you say, click his fingers, well he did that once - it was called the flood, and only 8 people survived.

    Like is it really that hard to remove poverty without some judgement day end of the world scenario lol
    This is no 'lol' matter. The reality is we have different perceptions of the world we live in.

    Which is fine. But the thing is, millions seek him, love him, and pray
    And then die of poor conditions and starvation
    ... knowing the hope of the resurrection. We all will die, but those who seek him and listen to his Word, will find him, and spend eternity with him.


    Is there a reason honest and good prayers aren't answered? Seems pretty cruel to ignore them, especially if it's for some food.
    He listens, but the answer may not be what you are looking for.

    One day he will, just hasn't for centuries where good people have suffered and died. Does God not care about them?
    "Good people"? Again we disagree on that.

    Secondly, 'Wicked' who are thrown into the blazing furnace are only like that because God created a 'broken world', he created sin and the bias against god we all have at birth (according to you). This is so horrid.
    God did not create a broken world nor did he create sin. the bias, you could describe as being born under a curse.

    Sadly, it doesn't make any sense when we discuss individuals. Those suffering and dying from poverty, who love God and are devout Christians
    if suffering only a third-world problem, is poverty the only problem. pretty sure suffering is universal. God is fairly consistent in that regards.

    From your view, why do you think there is poverty in the world?

    Feelsbad, god won't help millions starving to death because 'humanity as a unit' needs more time to chat
    Word choice could be better. Think of it as God spreading the warning for impending disaster before it hits. Those who are wise will take shelter in him, and those are aren't won't.


    Instead of "cleaning up" the entire world in a massacre
    (1) Punish individuals who do wrong
    (2) Help those who do good
    God clearly isn't too bright if he couldn't think of that one lmao
    Except for one fundamental problem. Who decides who does wrong, and who does good? By whose standard?
    I am pretty sure God accounted for that one

    Everyone but 1 is in category (1).
    Only 1 person, Jesus, is actually in category (2)

    Jesus then comes up, and says for those who acknowledge/accept him, that his good deeds would be attributed also to your account. (the blessings). And he takes upon your debt, and pays for it.

    He comes and frees people under the curse, and under slavery, buying them back for God.
    Last edited by dan964; 13 Oct 2017 at 6:20 AM.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/
    For 2017 papers, check the thread in the Mathematics forum.

    Dan will be back 14/10/17

  4. #18129
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    333
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Does God exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    By miracle I am referring to abberations of the laws of nature. Maybe you are meaning something different here.
    The scientific method works on the assumption that there are predictable pattern and order to the universe. It is a form of inductive reasoning.
    Deductive reasoning is also used in some fields, such as in the law court.
    Thanks for the info.
    My reasoning did not assume anything. See below

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    That is a fallacy, low probability does not imply impossibility.
    It is only an assumption made based on whether we can take confidence in the data that suggests only one or a few exception to the case.
    I did not imply impossibilty. I'm going to start numbering these, because you make an accusation and then ignore it when questioned. False accusation (FA1)
    Only one statement can be true

    1 - Jesus broke the laws of nature and came back to life
    2- Jesus did not break the laws of nature

    The data supports 2.
    Sure, 1 is possible in the hypothesis test if you think the laws of nature are wrong for this one instance (They are called the universal laws of nature for a reason)

    But for any given alpha level, the data greatly supports 2

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    The interesting question is how would we get to these percentages?
    Find the number of accounts which report deaths that do not result in a ressurection (probably billions)
    Find the number of accounts in the bible
    Add them together and this will be the denominator. Basic maths

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Of course, that link shows why there will be issues. What is a sufficient large/small sample size to draw conclusions on?
    That is really what I am asking. Is there a small enough set to avoid the argument to infinity problems, to probably make conclusions?
    Yes . a few billion accounts cannot be approximated with infinity

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Lets say hypothetically there were 0 miracles, then the percentage in your example should be 0.
    Lets say hypothetically there was e miracles where e is some small integer greater than 0.
    How many events are required in consideration to get the percentages/results in question.
    I can take into account all events :/
    This is a hypothesis test. I am not "trying to get" anything
    Just checking which hypothesis is affirmed by the model. (Not saying that your position is impossible, just saying that there is FAR FAR more evidence to support my position -> Number of accounts of death vs ressurection)

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Clearly a too small sample size will have issues.
    How do you determine the sample size?
    Thought so.
    http://spectrum.troy.edu/renckly/images/propor.gif

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Unfortunately this whole study, isn't going to be inductive.
    We start with a premise, and then we set out to prove/disprove it by evidence. That is deductive reasoning, we already have the end goal in mind.
    This is how people reason.
    Premise: It is more likely that Jesus did not break the laws of nature
    Evidence: Hypothesis test for proportions as mentioned above
    Conclusion: The evidence greatly supports the motion

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    I think it was posted on the first page of this forum, that "miracles" may not necessary have their original in God.
    Interesting Jesus is viewed in a negative way as a practicer of sorcery by the Jewish Talmud for instance.
    Much scholarship has been done on that.
    As I said, Sai baba has a lot more witness accounts of miracles than the bible. Accounts of him bringing the dead back to life.
    Why do you not accept him as god? Why Jesus?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    You do realise that is a pretty large sample.
    No Christian disputes the fact that most people do not rise again from the dead. But if it happened today, it would explode, but people would still be in disbelief. The question is did it really happen in this one instance about 2000 years ago. In that case we have to assess the material from people who claimed to have saw the events.
    How large is the sample of accounts that say Jesus came back from the dead?
    Is it larger than the accounts of Sai Baba? No. Yet for some reason you will not accept him as a god, only Jesus
    Is it larger then the accounts of people dying normally?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    I wouldn't call it the scientific method in a lot of fields and also this whole question extends beyond science.
    "Objective". Scientific method is far from "objective". That is the problem. Your fundamental assumption is everything can be explained by the methodology of the scientific method.
    I do not beleive in the metaphysical.
    What is your methodolgy, which can be applied in this scope, where science cannot?
    You keep dodging that question.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Well firstly, there is inductive reasoning which the scientific method, historical source criticism, works with evidence to draw conclusions. Now we scrutinize their conclusions with known standards, but how do we determine these standards?? With science, it is probably fairly straightforward, generally we say anything against the laws of nature is impossible/not considered, but in this study, that would be concluding the results or neglecting data before the analysis has been conducted.
    Wrong
    I did not assume anything in the above test. Premise, evidence and conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Then there is deductive reasoning, where we start with a premise e.g. "Does God Exist?" "Yes/No" and then proceed to present evidence.
    For instance in a court of law, the premise is "innocent until proven guilty". The problem is our original premise needs to be established as true.
    Again, you are wrong
    In a criminal case, you can assume innocent until proven guilty for wildly different reasons which are irrelevant here.
    In a civil case, we look at the balance of probabilites
    Does the evidence favour the plaintiff or the defendant? Here, clearly there is far more evidence that ressurections do not happen.
    This does not prove they are impossible, but often we can never prove who is right/wrong, we must weigh out the evidence and decide on a conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    The problem with the study, is miracles generally are events that do not repeat themselves in a predictable fashion, this means that the regular assumptions lying behind the scientific method cannot hold, if we are to consider the claims of miracles, without jumping to the dismissal of them.
    no assumptions were made

    [QUOTE=dan964;7262723]
    Genuinely do not understand what you are saying. You have a set of cards ... what am I ignoring again?
    Um, I said this. Not sure why you repeated me.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    What do you think?
    Why does every event have to be in line with the laws of physics?
    So let me get this straight
    Personally, you beleive that the laws of physics are not universal?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    ok sure.
    Another false accusation (FA2)

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    And where do you get those conclusions from?
    I think it's safe to assume that if god is caring, he wouldn't let his children suffer for centuries with plague, starvation, rape, toture and murder.
    Just a thought

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    You still argue from a position that God does not exist. Same reason, even I argued from your position
    Why do you say that it makes no sense for me to discuss the characterstics of god? I will assume god exists for the sake of argument, is there something wrong with that?

    Why do you have to blatantly misquote me?
    Sam: No I do not believe he exists. I will assume he exists to argue some of your points about the nature of god
    Yet you only quoted the first sentence in Italics.

    Pure dishonesty. FA3


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Again, I knew you assumed that. I am simply stating that you are arguing still with a premise to disprove God, as if blemishes on his character somehow means he doesn't exist.
    No. For that argument, I am disussing his character, not trying to disprove he exists.
    Can you not gather this without me telling you?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    I don't need to, most of them were strawmans, or arguments I wouldn't use. those are my reasons. you can dispute that, but they weren't addressed to you, interesting to see how you responded to that though.
    Just odd behaviour
    You go to a random athiest website.
    You then 'attack' the arguments on it by repeating 'i reject it' or 'out of context'
    I then mention that (1) these aren't arguments and (2) I don't care about the website

    You get defensive and say "I dont have to give arguments"

    I am really confused as to why you brought up a random website, said "i reject it" to it's claims and then say "I don't have to argue the points?"
    Does this have anything to do with my arguments?


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Quote, source? In the case of the devout, how would you know they haven't received something more lasting than these things?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    I am focusing on the resurrection, as a specific miracle.
    You are taking the original post you were responding to, out of context. The site I was quoting was making the assumption, that miraculous answers to prayer happen all the time, I was merely making a statement that Christians, like myself, do not focus so much/concerned on whether miracles as in healings occur today.
    This makes perfect sense, but I stated that I do not care about arguments random websites. I will state it again. Stop trying to attack the website and address my posts instead.



    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Out of context quoting.
    ...
    Yep, that was my fault. I thought you were referring to any miracles, such as resurreciton
    Did not know you were attacking some random argument on the website. Hopefully you understand my confusion
    Makes sense tho , different kinds of miracles


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Always assuming an argument. I was simply describing what Jesus taught and how he would have answered why some in this world suffer in poverty. there is much more that Jesus taught on the subject, but I thought to start with that.
    Can you answer it in as little words, and as clearly as possible. I legit don't see how that answered anything at all.
    Why has god let his children suffer rape, torture, murder starvation etc and die for centuries?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Yeah probably because I haven't done anything serious against you, maybe annoyed you at most. Our offence against God, is worse than treason.
    What is my 1.Y.O cousins offence towards god?
    What is the offence I have commited? If God wants us to accept him, he can show himself magnificently in the heavens.
    He doesn't tho

    More blatant lies. Why do you resort to deliberate misquoting?
    Sam: I'm sure there are other ways to do things, especially if, you know.... You are an all powerful god :/
    Yet you only quoted the part in italics and responded by saying


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    No I am not.
    FA4 (more like a deliberate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    how else do you propose to pay off debt. If someone comes and says, hey I will help you pray off that debt, and goes ahead and pays it all off.
    Is that unjust? No, that person was willing.
    I said : Oh and yes, I still think it's unjust that person A suffers for the crimes of person B, when person A has not done anything wrong .
    The example you gave is terrible.
    Original question:
    Why does a newborn have to be punished (e.g. with a terrible disease), because the general population, as you say, have 'broken the world'

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Oh and yes, I still think it's unjust that person A suffers for the crimes of person B, when person A has not done anything wrong .
    Maybe you need to actually revisit the ones he has already done in Jesus, and weigh the material up to see whether it is true or not e.g.
    again see last reply. it is "the" miracle. The post in question was addressing a caricature. So your reply is taking my words out of context.
    See above, did not know you were attacking a random claim not made by me
    It is just your nuance
    I will try again
    --> God can perform another miracle for me today. In fact, god can do a lot of very simple things to point me towards him. Instead, he elects not to. Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    then you do understand. the world is under a curse, the curse of sin, that is why there are problems.
    when the curse of sin is finally and fully broken. that can only happen at the end of the world (as we know it).
    Babies suffer at birth because "the world is broken under the curse of sin"
    The baby itself did not sin (No crime commited)
    Other humans did commit sin (Broke the world)
    Yet the baby has to pay for the crimes commited by other human beings

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Oh and yes, I still think it's unjust that person A suffers for the crimes of person B, when person A has not done anything wrong .
    My point exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    If God was to do as you say, click his fingers, well he did that once - it was called the flood, and only 8 people survived.
    I see nothing wrong with healing all poverty without massacring everyone in the proccess.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    This is no 'lol' matter. The reality is we have different perceptions of the world we live in.
    Then answer the question?
    Why can't god remove poverty without some judgement day massacre/ end of the world scenario


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    ... knowing the hope of the resurrection. We all will die, but those who seek him and listen to his Word, will find him, and spend eternity with him.
    Why does god put them through the suffering in the first place?
    Instead of
    1) Suffer from rape, torture, poverty etc..
    2) Die
    3) Ressurect and live eternity happily with god

    Lets have only natural deaths from (2) and (3) for the good christians out there

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    He listens, but the answer may not be what you are looking for.
    So he listens to the thousands of prayers by children starving do death, yet does not give them a bit of food
    What is his answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    "Good people"? Again we disagree on that.
    I am sure there are countless good people in the world who have suffered and died
    Just reading about one of them now!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    God did not create a broken world nor did he create sin. the bias, you could describe as being born under a curse.
    Um, God did create world where humans want to sin. Why not create a world where Humans want to sin less?
    Also, why did he curse us so that from birth we reject him and then suffer for it?
    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    if suffering only a third-world problem, is poverty the only problem. pretty sure suffering is universal. God is fairly consistent in that regards.
    FA5. I did not claim suffering is only a third world problem. Nor did I claim suffering was not universal. I was using the example of poverty. I could have used a more first world example of depression, but my point still holds

    You said
    The harvest is soon, but not yet. There is still time for people to chat/discuss and turn and listen to God. When we get to that final day, we cannot complain they he hasn't give us all (as a humanity unit)...

    And I responded by saying
    Sadly, it doesn't make any sense when we discuss individuals. Those suffering and dying from poverty, who love God and are devout Christians
    Feelsbad, god won't help millions starving to death because 'humanity as a unit' needs more time to chat


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Word choice could be better. Think of it as God spreading the warning for impending disaster before it hits. Those who are wise will take shelter in him, and those are aren't won't.
    So God is spreading the warning by letting millions starve do death? Can you be more clear?

    As I said
    Instead of "cleaning up" the entire world in a massacre
    (1) Punish individuals who do wrong
    (2) Help those who do good
    God clearly isn't too bright if he couldn't think of that one lmao

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Except for one fundamental problem. Who decides who does wrong, and who does good? By whose standard?
    Sigh.

    Dan: God will decide everyones fate on judgement day
    Sam: Millions and millions have died already from suffering and torture. Can't he just decide a bit earlier?

    P.S: If god will decide if you go to heaven or hell,
    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Everyone but 1 is in category (1).
    Only 1 person, Jesus, is actually in category (2)
    Oh. I thought there are plenty of good people who go to heaven :/
    Ouch. That is rough

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Jesus then comes up, and says for those who acknowledge/accept him, that his good deeds would be attributed also to your account.
    Sadly, Jesus does not come up and say that to my face
    If he did, I would consider it

    What happens to all the muslims in the world who have done enourmous good deads and are very kindhearted people? Their deeds aren't "attrinuted to their accounts" ? Simple because they did not acknowledge him?

    I will also be creating a seperate thread with all the things that were ignored. I beleive it is better if we reply in one large post, rather than split it up into 20 posts addressing different points. Up to you tho, I just think it is a bit easier to follow
    Last edited by SammyT123; 14 Oct 2017 at 8:31 PM.

  5. #18130
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,606
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by SammyT123 View Post
    Thanks for the info.
    My reasoning did not assume anything. See below


    I did not imply impossibilty. I'm going to start numbering these, because you make an accusation and then ignore it when questioned. False accusation (FA1)
    Only one statement can be true

    1 - Jesus broke the laws of nature and came back to life
    2- Jesus did not break the laws of nature

    The data supports 2.
    Sure, 1 is possible in the hypothesis test if you think the laws of nature are wrong for this one instance (They are called the universal laws of nature for a reason)

    But for any given alpha level, the data greatly supports 2


    Find the number of accounts which report deaths that do not result in a ressurection (probably billions)
    Find the number of accounts in the bible
    Add them together and this will be the denominator. Basic maths


    Yes . a few billion accounts cannot be approximated with infinity


    I can take into account all events :/
    This is a hypothesis test. I am not "trying to get" anything
    Just checking which hypothesis is affirmed by the model. (Not saying that your position is impossible, just saying that there is FAR FAR more evidence to support my position -> Number of accounts of death vs ressurection)


    http://spectrum.troy.edu/renckly/images/propor.gif



    Premise: It is more likely that Jesus did not break the laws of nature
    Evidence: Hypothesis test for proportions as mentioned above
    Conclusion: The evidence greatly supports the motion


    As I said, Sai baba has a lot more witness accounts of miracles than the bible. Accounts of him bringing the dead back to life.
    Why do you not accept him as god? Why Jesus?


    How large is the sample of accounts that say Jesus came back from the dead?
    Is it larger than the accounts of Sai Baba? No. Yet for some reason you will not accept him as a god, only Jesus
    Is it larger then the accounts of people dying normally?


    I do not beleive in the metaphysical.
    What is your methodolgy, which can be applied in this scope, where science cannot?
    You keep dodging that question.


    Wrong
    I did not assume anything in the above test. Premise, evidence and conclusion.


    Again, you are wrong
    In a criminal case, you can assume innocent until proven guilty for wildly different reasons which are irrelevant here.
    In a civil case, we look at the balance of probabilites
    Does the evidence favour the plaintiff or the defendant? Here, clearly there is far more evidence that ressurections do not happen.
    This does not prove they are impossible, but often we can never prove who is right/wrong, we must weigh out the evidence and decide on a conclusion.


    no assumptions were made

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Genuinely do not understand what you are saying. You have a set of cards ... what am I ignoring again?
    Um, I said this. Not sure why you repeated me.


    So let me get this straight
    Personally, you beleive that the laws of physics are not universal?



    Another false accusation (FA2)



    I think it's safe to assume that if god is caring, he wouldn't let his children suffer for centuries with plague, starvation, rape, toture and murder.
    Just a thought


    Why do you say that it makes no sense for me to discuss the characterstics of god? I will assume god exists for the sake of argument, is there something wrong with that?

    Why do you have to blatantly misquote me?
    Sam: No I do not believe he exists. I will assume he exists to argue some of your points about the nature of god
    Yet you only quoted the first sentence in Italics.

    Pure dishonesty. FA3



    No. For that argument, I am disussing his character, not trying to disprove he exists.
    Can you not gather this without me telling you?


    Just odd behaviour
    You go to a random athiest website.
    You then 'attack' the arguments on it by repeating 'i reject it' or 'out of context'
    I then mention that (1) these aren't arguments and (2) I don't care about the website

    You get defensive and say "I dont have to give arguments"

    I am really confused as to why you brought up a random website, said "i reject it" to it's claims and then say "I don't have to argue the points?"
    Does this have anything to do with my arguments?






    This makes perfect sense, but I stated that I do not care about arguments random websites. I will state it again. Stop trying to attack the website and address my posts instead.





    Yep, that was my fault. I thought you were referring to any miracles, such as resurreciton
    Did not know you were attacking some random argument on the website. Hopefully you understand my confusion
    Makes sense tho , different kinds of miracles



    Can you answer it in as little words, and as clearly as possible. I legit don't see how that answered anything at all.
    Why has god let his children suffer rape, torture, murder starvation etc and die for centuries?


    What is my 1.Y.O cousins offence towards god?
    What is the offence I have commited? If God wants us to accept him, he can show himself magnificently in the heavens.
    He doesn't tho

    More blatant lies. Why do you resort to deliberate misquoting?
    Sam: I'm sure there are other ways to do things, especially if, you know.... You are an all powerful god :/
    Yet you only quoted the part in italics and responded by saying




    FA4 (more like a deliberate



    I said : Oh and yes, I still think it's unjust that person A suffers for the crimes of person B, when person A has not done anything wrong .
    The example you gave is terrible.
    Original question:
    Why does a newborn have to be punished (e.g. with a terrible disease), because the general population, as you say, have 'broken the world'


    See above, did not know you were attacking a random claim not made by me
    It is just your nuance
    I will try again
    --> God can perform another miracle for me today. In fact, god can do a lot of very simple things to point me towards him. Instead, he elects not to. Why?


    Babies suffer at birth because "the world is broken under the curse of sin"
    The baby itself did not sin (No crime commited)
    Other humans did commit sin (Broke the world)
    Yet the baby has to pay for the crimes commited by other human beings


    My point exactly


    I see nothing wrong with healing all poverty without massacring everyone in the proccess.


    Then answer the question?
    Why can't god remove poverty without some judgement day massacre/ end of the world scenario



    Why does god put them through the suffering in the first place?
    Instead of
    1) Suffer from rape, torture, poverty etc..
    2) Die
    3) Ressurect and live eternity happily with god

    Lets have only natural deaths from (2) and (3) for the good christians out there


    So he listens to the thousands of prayers by children starving do death, yet does not give them a bit of food
    What is his answer?


    I am sure there are countless good people in the world who have suffered and died
    Just reading about one of them now!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi


    Um, God did create world where humans want to sin. Why not create a world where Humans want to sin less?
    Also, why did he curse us so that from birth we reject him and then suffer for it?

    FA5. I did not claim suffering is only a third world problem. Nor did I claim suffering was not universal. I was using the example of poverty. I could have used a more first world example of depression, but my point still holds

    You said
    The harvest is soon, but not yet. There is still time for people to chat/discuss and turn and listen to God. When we get to that final day, we cannot complain they he hasn't give us all (as a humanity unit)...

    And I responded by saying
    Sadly, it doesn't make any sense when we discuss individuals. Those suffering and dying from poverty, who love God and are devout Christians
    Feelsbad, god won't help millions starving to death because 'humanity as a unit' needs more time to chat



    So God is spreading the warning by letting millions starve do death? Can you be more clear?

    As I said
    Instead of "cleaning up" the entire world in a massacre
    (1) Punish individuals who do wrong
    (2) Help those who do good
    God clearly isn't too bright if he couldn't think of that one lmao


    Sigh.

    Dan: God will decide everyones fate on judgement day
    Sam: Millions and millions have died already from suffering and torture. Can't he just decide a bit earlier?

    P.S: If god will decide if you go to heaven or hell,

    Oh. I thought there are plenty of good people who go to heaven :/
    Ouch. That is rough


    Sadly, Jesus does not come up and say that to my face
    If he did, I would consider it

    What happens to all the muslims in the world who have done enourmous good deads and are very kindhearted people? Their deeds aren't "attrinuted to their accounts" ? Simple because they did not acknowledge him?

    I will also be creating a seperate thread with all the things that were ignored. I beleive it is better if we reply in one large post, rather than split it up into 20 posts addressing different points. Up to you tho, I just think it is a bit easier to follow
    I honestly think that endless thread replying is difficult to track anyways. I reply to each bit in term.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/
    For 2017 papers, check the thread in the Mathematics forum.

    Dan will be back 14/10/17

  6. #18131
    the head cheese cosmo 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    HSC
    2018
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    mcdonaldland
    Posts
    193
    Rep Power
    1

    Re: Does God exist?


  7. #18132
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,606
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyT123 View Post
    Thanks for the info.
    My reasoning did not assume anything. See below
    False representation: to be able to do science, you are under the the assumption that the universe is ordered. No one disputes. I am simply making the claim that when we approach science we come with assumptions.
    The AIG site which was alluded to, several posts, is one classic example that approaches science with bad assumptions. (We can tell the metholodogy is bad because its reasoning isn't coherent)

    I did not imply impossibilty. I'm going to start numbering these, because you make an accusation and then ignore it when questioned. False accusation (FA1)
    Your argument and model does/by claiming the following:
    [1]
    Only one statement can be true

    1 - Jesus broke the laws of nature and came back to life
    2- Jesus did not break the laws of nature

    The data supports 2.
    Sure, 1 is possible in the hypothesis test if you think the laws of nature are wrong for this one instance (They are called the universal laws of nature for a reason)
    But for any given alpha level, the data greatly supports 2
    [2]
    Find the number of accounts which report deaths that do not result in a ressurection (probably billions)
    Find the number of accounts in the bible
    Add them together and this will be the denominator. Basic maths
    Yes . a few billion accounts cannot be approximated with infinity
    I can take into account all events :/
    This is a hypothesis test. I am not "trying to get" anything
    Just checking which hypothesis is affirmed by the model. (Not saying that your position is impossible, just saying that there is FAR FAR more evidence to support my position -> Number of accounts of death vs ressurection)
    (1) Firstly, this is not how historians make any historical conclusions, as far as I am aware.
    (2) Secondly, what data? The New Testament writers would suggest in separate cases both (1) and (2) hold. But first to address the points:

    Let me refine your premises, on a case by case scenario:
    1. In a particular instance, Jesus broke laws of nature and came back to life.
    2. Jesus did not break the laws of nature.

    Technically, we can restructure again to consider all variants of (1):
    1. The laws of nature were broken when Jesus rose again from the dead. (removing the agent as a factor)
    [1A. The laws of nature weren't broken when Jesus rose again from the dead. (requires a different working definition for "laws" here)
    (1A is the negation of 1) for simplicity ignore 1A due to current working definition of laws of nature. I also prefer 1 over 1A.]

    This leads us to 2 possible conclusions for a particular case (we aren't considering 1A)
    1. Laws of nature broken. Resurrection occured.
    2. Laws of nature not broken, as resurrection did not occur. (there are other ways to rewrite 2 without agent)

    In this instance your metholody is inadequate or if it was how it was pre-imposed in a variant form, implies fallacy (improbable implies impossibility fallacy) as before.

    I think this is more of a case of a classification and category problem, where the data is of one category and the studies conducted are in category. Part of the nature of miracles, is their scientific unpredictable.
    That is you cannot guess or predict when a miracle, if miracles exist, will occur from the category of data.

    In order to conduct your study, you either have to assume they do or don't exist; whichever you presume is irrelevant, although assuming the latter could be consider circular logic.
    If you assume they do, your aim from your model is to prove they are contradictory. However your methodology is insufficient and inherently flawed.

    To use your example from earlier, to make it even more narrower:
    0.000000000000000002% of events - resurrection and suspect dead for at least 2 days.
    99.99999999999999998% of events - no resurrection and suspect dead.

    Common sense/laws of physics say that dead people do not rise from the dead (premise)

    Assume that Jesus rose from dead.
    Data then says that 99.9999999% of people do not rise.
    Therefore Jesus did not rise.

    If that is what your argument is, which is what it appears to me as, then the claim of implying impossibility from improbability is to some degree correct.
    although as mentioned earlier there are more fundamental issues.

    However if it as I would appear your argument is:
    1 (assume 0.00002% neglect due to low probability) All evidence/data supports people not rising from the dead.
    2. Therefore we have much confidence to believe that Jesus did not rise again from the dead.



    My position simply negates (2) by adding in:
    1 (modified): Almost all evidence/data supports people not rising from the dead.
    3. There is data to suggest that Jesus rose again from the dead.

    The problem is my position is not completely opposite to your position. Position is 99.9999998% identical to yours.
    Unlike you, I deem the "outliers" (using the term loosely of course) significant because they exist and not because of their number.
    However your model, only gives value to them, if they occur in large enough numbers. I think the best way is then to consider the individual data, that
    is the accounts for each case, and then examine why/why not they are the case. Because the truth value of the outlier cannot be determined from
    the other cases.

    Firstly,
    1. People die and are not raised
    2. When an exception to (1) occurs, there is a particular reason.
    (*immediately, that is more of thelogical side point)

    http://spectrum.troy.edu/renckly/images/propor.gif
    So what do we know about Z? The confidence level, how do we determine that to determine the sample size and the distibution. All the miracles of resurrection, are clustered. Why is this significant to our study?

    Let us define an f, where f maps to zero if dead person states dead, and when person does not stay dead, f maps to some positive n.
    Our model can be approximately with a continuous - the Dirac mass/delta function. The integral over the whole area is 1, so it is statistically valid.
    What is good/bad about this model?

    Lets think of it alternatively in terms of the 'density' of miracles. If we categorise miracles of the type that our testing, is concerned with (resurrection).
    This number can be assumed, quite safely to be close to 0.

    To simplify the study from before, lets consider male deaths only in the period 32-34AD with further limiting characteristics.
    The question is can we generalise from this refined study? Of course not. Factors that caused death were different there and then and now.
    Why are we permitted to do the opposite, and take a more general study of billions of people (yes not infinite, but still very very large),
    what affect should the existence of one small outlier

    Because of the significance of the outlier, in terms of its radical implications to our model, it is worth studying these outliers in more detail than your study has done.
    we have to study it more closely, unlike your model, which if it does avoid the charge of fallacy (improbable implies impossibility)
    still has a composition problem of being far too general to properly consider the data;
    or applies the fundamental assumption, laws of nature cannot be broken.


    Premise: It is more likely that Jesus did not break the laws of nature
    Evidence: Hypothesis test for proportions as mentioned above
    Conclusion: The evidence greatly supports the motion
    As I said, Sai baba has a lot more witness accounts of miracles than the bible. Accounts of him bringing the dead back to life.
    Why do you not accept him as god? Why Jesus?

    How large is the sample of accounts that say Jesus came back from the dead?
    Is it larger than the accounts of Sai Baba? No. Yet for some reason you will not accept him as a god, only Jesus
    Is it larger then the accounts of people dying normally?
    I am not arguing that the resurrection has to be unique, only you would have that problem.

    Technically the resurrection doesn't prove that Jesus is God, by itself, it is a bit more complex than that.
    It is the declaration that Jesus is right and true.

    And Jesus taught about God and all that. So it requires assessing also Jesus' claims, what did Jesus claim as true.
    This means not just assessing the resurrection but everything leading up to that, the rest of his claims. If they all have stack

    Many believe that Jesus teaching is 'quality' and give value to it, especially its moral teachers; however Jesus fundamentally believed in
    God, claimed to be God, and claimed that he would be killed in X fashion and rise again exactly 3 days later.

    With regard to Sai Baba, I would actually have to handle the witness accounts to be able to give an answer to your question.
    Because I haven't done that, I wouldn't know.

    The very little I do know, would suggest to you that I would reject him. But for different reasons:
    http://saibabaexposed.blogspot.com.a...-on-jesus.html

    Also I would have to investigate further the claims of Sai Baba's resurrection, would you be able to post a link or something?

    I do not beleive in the metaphysical.
    I know
    What is your methodolgy, which can be applied in this scope, where science cannot?
    You keep dodging that question.
    I addressed that above. It requires actual examination of the cases.
    Whether you call that science or not, is irrelevant.

    Science for instance:
    - Doesn't make moral judgements
    - Doesn't make aesthetic arguments
    - Doesn't tell you how to apply scientific knowledge
    - Doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural occurences.

    Unless you reject the 4th of these, and assert that science can make supernatural conclusions.
    1. Events/properties consistent with natural laws.
    2. Events/properties inconsistent with natural laws.
    under assumption natural laws are well-defined by science.
    1A. Because natural laws are consistent, we can make predictions


    If (2) is possible, then in science they are not well-defined enough to study with science, by principle of what science is.
    We cannot predict for instance a miracle, because by definition, a miracle falls outside natural laws.





    Wrong
    I did not assume anything in the above test. Premise, evidence and conclusion.
    Wrong, also. Every premise we form is under a series of assumptions, or hidden premises. No-one truely argues/hypothesis independently of
    their own worldview. Not commenting on whether these assumptions are good/true or not.
    The scientific method has fundamental assumptions in it as well.

    To demonstrate, the scientific method studies events of a particular nature, predictable. It is an inductive process.
    Deductive reasoning, starts with a premise and then seeks a conclusion.



    Again, you are wrong
    In a criminal case, you can assume innocent until proven guilty for wildly different reasons which are irrelevant here.
    In a civil case, we look at the balance of probabilites
    Does the evidence favour the plaintiff or the defendant? Here, clearly there is far more evidence that ressurections do not happen.
    This does not prove they are impossible, but often we can never prove who is right/wrong, we must weigh out the evidence and decide on a conclusion.
    Ok, but quality over quantity. If I was in a courtroom, and there was one person who was saying something different to the rest, who were saying exactly the same:
    1. Dismiss him as false, since clearly he is opposing everyone else.
    2. Or because it is different, study it more closely.

    no assumptions were made
    sure, I don't believe you, eh. we'll have to disagree on that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Genuinely do not understand what you are saying. You have a set of cards ... what am I ignoring again?
    Um, I said this. Not sure why you repeated me.
    yeah misquote. I didn't bother addressing that, because it was an incomplete sentence of mine.
    Sometimes started a thought but never quite finished it.

    So let me get this straight
    Personally, you beleive that the laws of physics are not universal?
    I explained my position above/ and previously.
    1. Yes in the sense, that everywhere they occur and hold. (that can be dispute in science)
    2. No in the sense, they don't necessarily have to hold every single time, but generally they do.

    When you understand this, you'll understand why I perceive you as ignoring information.
    Your assumption appears to be: they do hold every time. While it is explicit in your argument, it is relied upon to make your conclusions.


    Another false accusation (FA2)
    False accusation here, i am simply saying "ok sure" to one of your statements. How is THAT an accusation?
    Seriously, trying to show to others moral superiority here is not worth it.

    I think it's safe to assume that if god is caring, he wouldn't let his children suffer for centuries with plague, starvation, rape, toture and murder.
    Just a thought
    Yep, but is there more to God. Is not God also just? Punishing evil. Is not God right to discipline his children when they are disobedient for instance?

    Why do you say that it makes no sense for me to discuss the characterstics of god? I will assume god exists for the sake of argument, is there something wrong with that?
    no of course not. but how do you suppose God exists. which God are you supposing exists?

    Why do you have to blatantly misquote me?
    Sam: No I do not believe he exists. I will assume he exists to argue some of your points about the nature of god
    Yet you only quoted the first sentence in Italics.

    Pure dishonesty. FA3
    Dismissed, hardly a misquote. You are not getting/understanding my point. Ah no. There is a difference between assuming God exists, it is another jump to start making assumptions and conclusions about God's existence.
    If you are expecting rigour for God's existence, the same is expected for conclusions about what he is like.

    Empirically if God exists, you can only deduce that he is powerful and that he is divine. That is it. The rest rely on some form of revelation
    (God speaking) about what he is like. To make some of your claims REQUIRE more assumptions than simply just God exists. You yourself in your arguments, which I have addressed
    have revealed such. I have addressed particular ones at points. You are trying to argue from a position of faith in some
    matters when you do not have faith. You cannot expect to be neutral, unbiased simply because you are from the negative position. It doesn't work like that.

    You can make claims, but your basis is an assumption which you yourself do not hold. The problem is your positioning is not the same as mine, and so trying to prove that God doesn't exist
    or is a jerk, requires that the same assumptions are made between my position and yours. In our discussion, this is categorically demonstrated as false.

    Because you cannot argue from a position independent of your worldview/assumptions. Neither can I entirely either.
    There is always a bias. Now in this case, it can be good for you to attempt to argue, but you come across a lot of problems because you
    assume certain things about God which I do not assume:

    "God is caring" so he must stop suffering.
    "God is just" so only evil people are killed (with the hidden premise that I am a half-decent bloke on God's scale)

    "God is caring" implies X as your PREVIOUS reply stated. I am simply saying that unless your assumption that God exists is based on a firm grounding,
    how can you make claims about what God is like?

    How is that not applying assumptions to God?


    No. For that argument, I am disussing his character, not trying to disprove he exists.
    Can you not gather this without me telling you?
    yes, is it an argument or discussion. Your discussion is of the form:
    God has X property, which requires to him to do Y thing.
    You will notice I have generally rejected those lines of reasoning.

    Just odd behaviour
    You go to a random athiest website.
    You then 'attack' the arguments on it by repeating 'i reject it' or 'out of context'
    I then mention that (1) these aren't arguments and (2) I don't care about the website
    You get defensive and say "I dont have to give arguments"
    I am really confused as to why you brought up a random website, said "i reject it" to it's claims and then say "I don't have to argue the points?"
    Does this have anything to do with my arguments?
    It was more of a commentary on the website, you may dismiss it is relevant, although the first guy on this thread goes to a random website and posts the arguments there.

    What that website shows is that Christians hardly have it always together in arguing/presenting a case;
    and it is naively stupid to claim that I have EXACTLY the same assumptions as the Christian next-door.

    This makes perfect sense, but I stated that I do not care about arguments random websites. I will state it again.
    Stop trying to attack the website and address my posts instead.
    I have been. But you are not the only person I feel obliged to address sometimes.


    Yep, that was my fault. I thought you were referring to any miracles, such as resurreciton
    Did not know you were attacking some random argument on the website. Hopefully you understand my confusion
    Makes sense tho , different kinds of miracles
    thats ok. even I make mistakes too.



    Can you answer it in as little words, and as clearly as possible. I legit don't see how that answered anything at all.
    Why has god let his children suffer rape, torture, murder starvation etc and die for centuries?
    What is my 1.Y.O cousins offence towards god?
    What is the offence I have commited? If God wants us to accept him, he can show himself magnificently in the heavens.
    He doesn't tho.
    there may not be a specific reason that I can give you, for x person suffering y thing/event. In general, it can be understood that
    the world is broken under a curse and under judgement. The offence is maybe not the right way of saying it, sorry on my part.
    It is more of a positional & internal thing, we are separated from God, we have rejected God, we have sinned; rather than simply actions or words.

    "The heavens are telling of the glory of God. And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech,
    And night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard." from the Psalm.


    More blatant lies. Why do you resort to deliberate misquoting?

    FA4 (more like a deliberate
    How was that a misquote? What I said is a true statement. I am not a/the all-powerful God.
    That is my answer, your hypothetical is irrelevant, I dismissed it because I am not an all-powerful God, and I will not be.

    Maybe I should have explained better, but for me I don't put myself in God's shoes and try to say what I would do, if I were him.
    What I have been replying is more so of how I understand God, but I am not going to be able to know everything nor answer everything either.

    In this forums and discussions between different world views, there are going to be misunderstandings, especially in the written text media;
    and especially because we do not know each other personally. It would be good to keep that in mind.

    I said : Oh and yes, I still think it's unjust that person A suffers for the crimes of person B, when person A has not done anything wrong .
    The example you gave is terrible.
    Original question:
    Why does a newborn have to be punished (e.g. with a terrible disease), because the general population, as you say, have 'broken the world'
    Example was addressing something else. Yeah that happens (as in I give terrible examples).
    Same as question about 1 YO cousin. The answer is still the same.

    there are 3 things:
    1. God never gives a particular reason for why X person suffers Y thing/event.
    2. We can only understand why suffering occurs in general, and what God is doing overall. The specifics are not mentioned/revealed.
    3. God participates in our suffering as well, in Jesus.

    this will mean that if you are giving specific examples of suffering, there is no specific answer from me on that.

    See above, did not know you were attacking a random claim not made by me
    It is just your nuance
    I will try again
    --> God can perform another miracle for me today. In fact, god can do a lot of very simple things to point me towards him. Instead, he elects not to. Why?
    Again if you do not pay attention or dismiss the things that Jesus said and did, most chiefly his death and resurrection;
    you are going to miss "the very simple things" you demand.
    That is how God has chosen to reveal himself, so that we would seek him.

    Babies suffer at birth because "the world is broken under the curse of sin"
    The baby itself did not sin (No crime commited)
    Other humans did commit sin (Broke the world)
    Yet the baby has to pay for the crimes commited by other human beings
    Yep, because sin is not merely something "committed", it is also a state we are under.
    Think of it like citizenship. You either have citizenship with God or not. By default, when we are born, because of broken world/order
    we are separated from God.

    The baby 'pays' for its own crimes. The suffering received in this life/the curse, is a warning as to what is to come, in a life eternally separated from God.
    But the specifics, I wouldn't have an answer.

    I see nothing wrong with healing all poverty without massacring everyone in the proccess.
    That is you. You are not God. There is a question of justice. To repeat the end of my last post:
    Instead of "cleaning up" the entire world in a massacre
    (1) Punish individuals who do wrong
    (2) Help those who do good
    God clearly isn't too bright if he couldn't think of that one lmao
    Except for one fundamental problem. Who decides who does wrong, and who does good? By whose standard?
    I am pretty sure God accounted for that one

    Everyone but 1 is in category (1). Only 1 person, Jesus, is actually in category (2)

    Jesus then comes up, and says for those who acknowledge/accept him, that his good deeds would be attributed also to your account. (the blessings).
    And he takes upon your debt, and pays for it.
    He comes and frees people under the curse, and under slavery, buying them back for God.


    I am simply explaining at this point because I understand you won't be convinced.

    Then answer the question?
    Why can't god remove poverty without some judgement day massacre/ end of the world scenario
    When God removes poverty and all sin ==> end of world/judgement.
    Because God is just is my answer.

    Why does god put them through the suffering in the first place?
    Instead of
    1) Suffer from rape, torture, poverty etc..
    2) Die
    3) Ressurect and live eternity happily with god

    Lets have only natural deaths from (2) and (3) for the good christians out there
    Steven was stoned.
    Some Christians were matryed for their faith, and rejoiced for being counted worthy of suffering for the name.
    So he listens to the thousands of prayers by children starving do death, yet does not give them a bit of food
    What is his answer?
    I answered that in general, re-read my previous replies. If my answer does not satisfy then that is the answer I have given/see below.

    I am sure there are countless good people in the world who have suffered and died
    Just reading about one of them now!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
    Again, what is good and what is not good. That is the question. Science cannot answer that, so where is the basis for you?
    And note I will, as explained have a different basis.

    1. Um, God did create world where humans want to sin. Why not create a world where Humans want to sin less?
    2. Also, why did he curse us so that from birth we reject him and then suffer for it?
    Addressing (1), God created world, then human sinned. I don't think either me or you have the basis to claim that God created us wanting to sin.
    The picture Christians get from Genesis 1-2, is that God created his world according to his purposes, we presume without sin.
    It seems that accounting for human sin was always part of God's plan of bringing glory to himself, and bringing people to himself.
    suffering is part of that, and living under the curse is part of that.

    It is judgement,
    "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"

    FA5. I did not claim suffering is only a third world problem. Nor did I claim suffering was not universal. I was using the example of poverty. I could have used a more first world example of depression, but my point still holds
    Well I only replied to what you said, not to what you didn't. Simply a comment on the seemily one-sidedness of the examples used. Could have been done more clearly.

    You said
    The harvest is soon, but not yet. There is still time for people to chat/discuss and turn and listen to God. When we get to that final day, we cannot complain they he hasn't give us all (as a humanity unit)...

    And I responded by saying
    Sadly, it doesn't make any sense when we discuss individuals. Those suffering and dying from poverty, who love God and are devout Christians
    Feelsbad, god won't help millions starving to death because 'humanity as a unit' needs more time to chat


    So God is spreading the warning by letting millions starve do death? Can you be more clear?
    Not quite, I don't think we can clearly extrapolate the warning from human suffering and the broken of this world.
    The flow is:
    1. When Jesus returns, suffering will end.
    2. Reason behind (1): so that people can hear Gospel about Jesus and repent.
    3. As when Jesus returns, he will also judge.

    As I said
    Instead of "cleaning up" the entire world in a massacre
    (1) Punish individuals who do wrong
    (2) Help those who do good
    God clearly isn't too bright if he couldn't think of that one lmao
    Sigh.
    I addressed this earlier. Jesus death was the way for those who would have otherwise been punished to have their punishment removed.
    Dan: God will decide everyones fate on judgement day
    Sam: Millions and millions have died already from suffering and torture. Can't he just decide a bit earlier?
    P.S: If god will decide if you go to heaven or hell,
    Ouch. That is rough
    Yeah that is rough but that is the diagnosis.
    Pretty sure if heaven is God's kingdom, where God is, then he gets to decide.

    See after last quote bubble... but also end of last post.

    Sadly, Jesus does not come up and say that to my face
    If he did, I would consider it
    Yeah, he would have to return to say it to your face. You might just have to take it from those who did hear him, wrote it down?
    Jesus said:
    "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

    What happens to all the muslims in the world who have done enourmous good deads and are very kindhearted people? Their deeds aren't "attrinuted to their accounts" ? Simple because they did not acknowledge him?
    I think you know my answer to that one.
    It is the same as my last reply. only those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord are saved. Muslims do not, despite believing in a God.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/
    For 2017 papers, check the thread in the Mathematics forum.

    Dan will be back 14/10/17

  8. #18133
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,606
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

    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.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/
    For 2017 papers, check the thread in the Mathematics forum.

    Dan will be back 14/10/17

  9. #18134
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,606
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Does God exist?

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

    A different way of approaching your same study:
    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.
    Last edited by dan964; 15 Oct 2017 at 5:09 PM.
    2014 HSC
    2015 Gap Year
    2016-2018 UOW Bachelor of Maths/Maths Advanced.

    Links:
    View English Notes (no download)
    Maths Notes - Free Sample

    thsconline: https://thsconline.github.io/s/
    For 2017 papers, check the thread in the Mathematics forum.

    Dan will be back 14/10/17

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •