Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Subduction Zone]

How did I use it that was different than how Jesus used it?

How do you think that you were using it in the same way? You keep making unwarranted assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your free psychological analysis, but you don't seem able to show how I am in error.

Actually both of us did. But you are welcome anyway.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you think that you were using it in the same way? You keep making unwarranted assumptions.

You are the one claiming I am in error but you have not given one thing to show it. I've given numerous evidences for my point of view and you have given zero other than your own opinion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually both of us did. But you are welcome anyway.

No, you both gave opinions with nothing to back them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one claiming I am in error but you have not given one thing to show it. I've given numerous evidences for my point of view and you have given zero other than your own opinion.

And the error was shown to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you both gave opinions with nothing to back them.

Nope, we both explained your error, independently we both observed the same error. You won't let yourself understand. If you won't let yourself understand we can't help you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And the error was shown to you.

No, you have claimed that I am in error but you have not shown anything to back that up, neither of you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you have claimed that I am in error but you have not shown anything to back that up, neither of you.

Wrong. Both of use explained your error to you. You won't let yourself understand.

 

[[serious]]

Maybe it is me today but I am not getting your point. You do know that the Holy Spirit was spoken of in the Old Testament too. And Jesus:

The hope of a Messiah, a Redeemer, is at the heart of our People it is throughout our liturgy, literature, and binds us together throughout history. It is also our greatest gift to mankind.

ADONAI promised Avraham Avinu, before we were even a People, that through his offspring, all the nations of the world will be blessed (Genesis 12:3), and that our Messiah will be a light to the Gentiles, bringing salvation to the ends of the earth, through a new covenant (Isaiah 42 & 49, Jeremiah 31). This has certainly happened through Yeshua, whom the Gentiles call Jesus!

http://www.jewishvoice.org/who-is-yeshua/?referrer=https://www.google.com/

One quick note, "The Jewish Voice" is not a Jewish website. It's an evangelical christian website. From the "about us" page:
"In 1967, healing evangelist Louis Kaplan launched a ministry called Jewish Voice. That same year, he started a radio program, Jewish Voice Broadcasts, which aired for the first time on Christian radio in Phoenix, Arizona." from there it gets really weird claiming that launching a radio station with that name is somehow related to the end of the 6 days war. I don't get it either.

As for the matter at hand, as I said before, there is a difference between Jesus as the only begotten son and us all as children of God, correct?

I'm assuming you are a trinitarian and answered yes to the above. We now have two concepts, God the father as the literal, biological father of Jesus, and God as the figurative, spiritual father of believers.

The verses you provided are all using the figurative language. In Psalms, the author (traditionally identified as David) says God is "my father". Is David actually Jesus and likewise a literal, biological child of God? I assume you are a trinitarian and answer no.

The next verse you reference is from Isaiah, and reference's "our father" meaning the Jewish People generally. Once again, are all Jewish people the literal, biological children of God akin to Jesus? I assume you are taking the trinitarian view and saying "no, Jesus is not just another Jew".

The last verse says God is "Israel's father" Is Israel literally Jesus? Is Jesus a collection of people rather than an individual? Once again I assume you are a trinitarian and answer no.

So each of the verses you provided cannot be used to support a trinitarian view of God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That isn't to say that interpretation is wrong, just that those verse do not address it, but rather address the figurative idea of us all as children of God.

I hope that explains it better as I really don't know how to break it down any more.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One quick note, "The Jewish Voice" is not a Jewish website. It's an evangelical christian website. From the "about us" page:
"In 1967, healing evangelist Louis Kaplan launched a ministry called Jewish Voice. That same year, he started a radio program, Jewish Voice Broadcasts, which aired for the first time on Christian radio in Phoenix, Arizona." from there it gets really weird claiming that launching a radio station with that name is somehow related to the end of the 6 days war. I don't get it either.

As for the matter at hand, as I said before, there is a difference between Jesus as the only begotten son and us all as children of God, correct?

I'm assuming you are a trinitarian and answered yes to the above. We now have two concepts, God the father as the literal, biological father of Jesus, and God as the figurative, spiritual father of believers.

The verses you provided are all using the figurative language. In Psalms, the author (traditionally identified as David) says God is "my father". Is David actually Jesus and likewise a literal, biological child of God? I assume you are a trinitarian and answer no.

The next verse you reference is from Isaiah, and reference's "our father" meaning the Jewish People generally. Once again, are all Jewish people the literal, biological children of God akin to Jesus? I assume you are taking the trinitarian view and saying "no, Jesus is not just another Jew".

The last verse says God is "Israel's father" Is Israel literally Jesus? Is Jesus a collection of people rather than an individual? Once again I assume you are a trinitarian and answer no.

So each of the verses you provided cannot be used to support a trinitarian view of God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That isn't to say that interpretation is wrong, just that those verse do not address it, but rather address the figurative idea of us all as children of God.

I hope that explains it better as I really don't know how to break it down any more.

I appreciate your time and effort in your explanation. I wasn't claiming the website was Jewish, I was showing how the author explained it as I was.

So in a nutshell, what you are saying is that because Jesus is considered God's son by Christians we view God the Father differently than He and other Jews did. Jesus, spoke of God the Father in both ways. However, God is considered God the Father (not literally of Jesus) but father of us all and that is the same God we worship as Christians. Some Jews don't agree, the majority of them but that doesn't take away the fact that God the Father as viewed by Jews and Christians is the same, we just have been branched in by Jews not accepting Jesus as their Savior.

 

[durangodawood]

The stuff is what it is because of the laws. Matter, energy, space and even time are all part of the laws of which we speak. If for instance if matter was even one grain of sand heavier or lighter the universe on one hand would not exist and on the other we wouldn't. The same holds for gravity, if gravity's pull was even the slightest bit different "stuff" wouldn't exist.

But there's nothing to say the mass of an electron is the result of some other..... thing.
Or decreed by some other.... thing.
We know the electron has a certain mass, and thats all.
Adding a "law" to explain it, or decree it, is unnecessary extra baggage.

 

[Freodin]

Where does it state that if you can make statements about the "basis of existence" it can not then be the "basis of existence"?

It doesn't. I didn't. You seem to have misunderstood something.

I rephrase:
1. I think it is impossible to make any statements about what I say is the "basis of existence" (for want of a better term), for some reasons I have found and discussed elsewhere. I can explain there reasons, but for this conclusion here, this is not necessary.
2. Christians say that you can make statements about their God.
3. If you can make statements about the one thing, but not about the other, these two things cannot be identical. Thus the Christian God cannot be what I say is the "basis of existence".

Does it matter?

I don't know. It seemed to matter to you.

See, I was talking about "perfect descriptions", back in post #115. I was trying to explain that in order for such a "perfect description" or "blueprint" or "idea" of something to exist, it would have to be identical to the object itself.
Somehow you again referred that to your God, and introduced the Bible as a "description" of God.

So I was talking about "perfect descriptions". You are talking about "description". If you aren't talking about the thing I was talking about... why did you introduce it?

There is no consistent materialistic worldview, I think the Christian worldview is completely consistent with the way the world should look if it is true.

I don't think so. Let's go back to something you posted earlier, in post #142.
"... we know that order to chaos is the natural way rather than chaos to order."
That is a materialistic worldview that you proclaim as "knowledge".
You proclaim that there is a "natural way" and that it has certain attributes.

You propose two distinct states here: one "natural", without laws given by a law-giver, and one "divine", where creation follows the given laws.

But you ignore that this "natural" state also follows laws... "order to chaos" is such a law! If you were consistent, you would have to admit that the "natural" state didn't follow any laws at all... and this is impossible for you to imagine, and impossible for you to accept.

Thus the Christian worldview that you propose here is internally inconsistent.

They would not, I am still not following...sorry. :/

No worries, I think we have followed this special path too far already.

I'm sorry? Maybe it is me today but I am not following your thought process here.

My be me... I have been a little feverish lately.

You claimed that you agreed with me about the "underlying order of the universe"... but I didn't make any statements about such an order, so it is me who cannot follow your though process here. You made that statement... could you explain what you think it was that you agreed with?

Would you agree that the laws of logic and the laws of nature do not depend on human minds to exist?

In a way, yes. But now it is my turn to ask: why do you think this is relevant for this conversation?

 

[Gracchus]

This part of the forum is for the discussion of Physical & Life Sciences. Perhaps you should take the purely "theological" discussions to some other section of the forum.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am saying that gravity is part of the laws of nature of which we are speaking.

And? Is it random chance at work when things fall, or is something falling the intelligent action of a, well, something? Or do you see the problem in assuming that non-random is the same as "directed by an intelligence".

 

[stevevw]

What makes you think it was fine tuned for life instead of pretty stellar nebulae or black holes?

Also, why would you expect to find humans in a universe incapable of supporting humans? It seems that you are ignoring a rather large confirmation bias.

I am not sure about black holes but we do know that there is life on planet earth. That life needed a lot of things to be just right to exist. So the parameters that allowed that were fined tuned to within a very precise order for life to happen. pretty Stella nebulae or any other occurrences like black holes can happen here, there and anywhere. Whereas intelligent life is only verified right in our tiny pin point location in a massive unlimited universe at the moment. That seems pretty specific and fine tuned to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not sure about black holes but we do know that there is life on planet earth.

We also know that there are pretty stellar nebulae out in the universe. Why isn't the universe fine tuned for those nebulae instead of life?

That life needed a lot of things to be just right to exist.

So do the nebulae.

pretty Stella nebulae or any other occurrences like black holes can happen here, there and anywhere.

Which is what you would expect from a universe fine tuned for nebulae and black holes.

Whereas intelligent life is only verified right in our tiny pin point location in a massive unlimited universe at the moment. That seems pretty specific and fine tuned to me.

Seems like the universe is not fine tuned for life. If the universe were fine tuned for life, then it would be seen everywhere.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And? Is it random chance at work when things fall, or is something falling the intelligent action of a, well, something? Or do you see the problem in assuming that non-random is the same as "directed by an intelligence".

I don't buy into "random" chance. The laws of physics determine gravity and all other aspects and elements in the universe. It doesn't matter whether gravity "itself" is intelligent but whether or not it is an element created for a purpose that works accordingly for that purpose, it is part of the design. IF a human machine has a plan and purpose, it isn't intelligent of itself but has purpose and design from intelligence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This part of the forum is for the discussion of Physical & Life Sciences. Perhaps you should take the purely "theological" discussions to some other section of the forum.

I agree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It doesn't. I didn't. You seem to have misunderstood something.

I rephrase:
1. I think it is impossible to make any statements about what I say is the "basis of existence" (for want of a better term), for some reasons I have found and discussed elsewhere. I can explain there reasons, but for this conclusion here, this is not necessary.
2. Christians say that you can make statements about their God.
3. If you can make statements about the one thing, but not about the other, these two things cannot be identical. Thus the Christian God cannot be what I say is the "basis of existence".


I don't know. It seemed to matter to you.

See, I was talking about "perfect descriptions", back in post #115. I was trying to explain that in order for such a "perfect description" or "blueprint" or "idea" of something to exist, it would have to be identical to the object itself.
Somehow you again referred that to your God, and introduced the Bible as a "description" of God.

So I was talking about "perfect descriptions". You are talking about "description". If you aren't talking about the thing I was talking about... why did you introduce it?


I don't think so. Let's go back to something you posted earlier, in post #142.
"... we know that order to chaos is the natural way rather than chaos to order."
That is a materialistic worldview that you proclaim as "knowledge".
You proclaim that there is a "natural way" and that it has certain attributes.

You propose two distinct states here: one "natural", without laws given by a law-giver, and one "divine", where creation follows the given laws.

But you ignore that this "natural" state also follows laws... "order to chaos" is such a law! If you were consistent, you would have to admit that the "natural" state didn't follow any laws at all... and this is impossible for you to imagine, and impossible for you to accept.

Thus the Christian worldview that you propose here is internally inconsistent.


No worries, I think we have followed this special path too far already.



My be me... I have been a little feverish lately.

You claimed that you agreed with me about the "underlying order of the universe"... but I didn't make any statements about such an order, so it is me who cannot follow your though process here. You made that statement... could you explain what you think it was that you agreed with?


In a way, yes. But now it is my turn to ask: why do you think this is relevant for this conversation?

Is a toaster identical to a human? Why does something designed by God need to be identical to Him? This seems rather strange.

I don't use two states, one natural without a lawgiver and another divine. You are misunderstanding my position. All creation, the universe and everything in it works on the laws of physics and by Divine design.

By the way you said you were feverish, was that just joking or are you not feeling well?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But there's nothing to say the mass of an electron is the result of some other..... thing.
Or decreed by some other.... thing.
We know the electron has a certain mass, and thats all.
Adding a "law" to explain it, or decree it, is unnecessary extra baggage.

So to understand you correctly, you are claiming there are no laws?