Was Jesus Death Predetermined By God?

[TDselector]

When Jesus hung on the cross, he was prohibited from conducting a direct selection in order to continue his existence. Does his death confirm the outcome of the Final Selection Thought Experiment (see link) was predetermined?

 

[Darkstorn]

When Jesus hung on the cross, he was prohibited from conducting a direct selection in order to continue his existence. Does his death confirm the outcome of the Final Selection Thought Experiment (see link) was predetermined?

With having read a few paragraphs:

It's crap.

I could argue about it properly. But i think it's an effort in futility. Let's just say there's way too many assumptions... And unproven premises.

 

[blü 2]

A verse you might like to consider is Mark2, which is at the start of his adventures. It says ─

19. And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20. The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.
​

I'm inclined to read that as a statement that Jesus knows he's bound for death.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A very big problem is the Giant's Super Bowl win won't help cure cancer or Alzheimer's, and when it says "if there is a god," that statement assumes much, way more than just assuming there is a god. It does help though when you link to something that links to a scientific study that most people here won't even be able to read (as it's in Russian), which certainly does add a degree of difficulty in making a proper rebuttal, but it's not needed anyways given the poor assumptions of the article you link us to.

 

[eldios]

When Jesus hung on the cross, he was prohibited from conducting a direct selection in order to continue his existence. Does his death confirm the outcome of the Final Selection Thought Experiment (see link) was predetermined?

Everything we experience is predetermined according to the program.

Acts 4:
27: for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
28: to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place.

 

[TDselector]

With having read a few paragraphs:

It's crap.

I could argue about it properly. But i think it's an effort in futility. Let's just say there's way too many assumptions... And unproven premises.

There is only one assumption being contested and that is since our existence is dependent upon being able to select what does a God have to do with our existence?

 

[Darkstorn]

There is only one assumption being contested and that is since our existence is dependent upon being able to select what does a God have to do with our existence?

Is the god assumed to exist, or is it assumed to be merely a literal device?

If the latter, well. Nothing.

 

[1robin]

When Jesus hung on the cross, he was prohibited from conducting a direct selection in order to continue his existence. Does his death confirm the outcome of the Final Selection Thought Experiment (see link) was predetermined?

It was decided upon by the Godhead composed of all the persons. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit do not impose their wills upon the other members because their wills while being distinct are completely consistent.

Your link does not seem related to actual Christianity or your question and it comes from one bizarre looking site.

 

[TDselector]

A very big problem is the Giant's Super Bowl win won't help cure cancer or Alzheimer's, and when it says "if there is a god," that statement assumes much, way more than just assuming there is a god. It does help though when you link to something that links to a scientific study that most people here won't even be able to read (as it's in Russian), which certainly does add a degree of difficulty in making a proper rebuttal, but it's not needed anyways given the poor assumptions of the article you link us to.

You're right the Giants Super Bowl victory won't cure cancer, etc. It is how the research began. The findings are what will help lead to finding cures by advancing science as a complete study of nature.

The God theory is indeed an assumption that is why it is called a "belief".

The article was written in English published by a Russian language Belarus scientific journal. If you read the article you would know that it was written for layman understanding.

 

[TDselector]

It was decided upon by the Godhead composed of all the persons. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit do not impose their wills upon the other members because their wills while being distinct are completely consistent.

Your link does not seem related to actual Christianity or your question and it comes from one bizarre looking site.

Christianity, Jewish and Muslim faiths are all based on one assumption, i.e., the God theory. If God is truly a supreme being then God cannot be, without exception, subservient to anything else. This means that if our existence is indeed "God Given" then everyone can conduct the Final Selection Thought Experiment in real life and continue their "God Given" existence. Jesus tested his existence in real life against the laws that govern our existence and lost.

So much for the validity of a "supreme being".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is how the research began. The findings are what will help lead to finding cures by advancing science as a complete study of nature.

No, it won't.

The God theory is indeed an assumption that is why it is called a "belief".

A belief is not a theory.

The article was written in English published by a Russian language Belarus scientific journal. If you read the article you would know that it was written for layman understanding.

The very real issue with linking to an article in a foreign language, we don't know if this original article even supports what you linked us to. It's just as effective as having not linked to it all since, given this website deals a lot with American sports teams and this Giant's win you link us too often. Those who will read the article you linked us to who can also read what that article links us to is probably very slim. And when your audience can't read it, why bother? For all we know, that Russian article doesn't even have anything to do with your claims.

 

[TDselector]

No, it won't.

A belief is not a theory.

The very real issue with linking to an article in a foreign language, we don't know if this original article even supports what you linked us to. It's just as effective as having not linked to it all since, given this website deals a lot with American sports teams and this Giant's win you link us too often. Those who will read the article you linked us to who can also read what that article links us to is probably very slim. And when your audience can't read it, why bother? For all we know, that Russian article doesn't even have anything to do with your claims.

A "theory or belief" are fundamentally an assumption. This is what makes them the same. The Final Selection Thought Experiment does not require "theory or belief" since it is base on the nature of our reality not opinions, theory, or beliefs. See pgs. 88-89 of the article that is written in English.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A "theory or belief" are fundamentally an assumption.

If you believe you can fly and jump off a tall building, is your belief you can fly going to save you, or is the theory of gravity cause you to plummet to your death? If you are cut with an infected blade, is your belief that evil diseases are caused only by evil gremlins blowing a powder going to keep you safe, or is germ theory going to explain the ensuing infection?

 

[TDselector]

If you believe you can fly and jump off a tall building, is your belief you can fly going to save you, or is the theory of gravity cause you to plummet to your death? If you are cut with an infected blade, is your belief that evil diseases are caused only by evil gremlins blowing a powder going to keep you safe, or is germ theory going to explain the ensuing infection?

Unless a theory is "absolute" it can at best be only an assumption regardless of how successful the theory predicts behavior/effects. A true scientist knows the limitation of the validity of theories. Today's theories are tomorrow's conjectures because they are not absolute. They are no more than alternative facts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unless a theory is "absolute" it can at best be only an assumption regardless

The term "theory" is only used to mean an assumption by laypeople. It is absolutely never used in science like this.

Today's theories are tomorrow's conjectures because they are not absolute.

Germ theory, theory of gravity, Doppler theory, theory of special relativity, theory of the combustibility of oxygen, information theory, quantum theory....

They are no more than alternative facts.

...theory of magnetism, game theory, theory of general relativity, theory of heliocentrism, and many, many more are concrete facts, not these so-called "alternative facts" that exist only for people who really want to being Euclid's theorum is wrong and that there is only a finite amount of prime numbers. These things are not going anyways, they are not "tomorrow's conjectures," and I suggest you take the time to read what theories actually are and how science uses them instead of going on about things that are so blatantly false.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And, btw, there is no such thing as an "alternative fact." If a man robs a store, the cashier says he did, the robber says he didn't. This is not "fact vs. alternative fact," but rather we would properly call it in a society capable of critical thought "honesty vs. lying." I could say I've stayed up for 72 hours straight with no sleep. That is not an "alternative fact," it would be a lie.

 

[TDselector]

The term "theory" is only used to mean an assumption by laypeople. It is absolutely never used in science like this.

Germ theory, theory of gravity, Doppler theory, theory of special relativity, theory of the combustibility of oxygen, information theory, quantum theory....

...theory of magnetism, game theory, theory of general relativity, theory of heliocentrism, and many, many more are concrete facts, not these so-called "alternative facts" that exist only for people who really want to being Euclid's theorum is wrong and that there is only a finite amount of prime numbers. These things are not going anyways, they are not "tomorrow's conjectures," and I suggest you take the time to read what theories actually are and how science uses them instead of going on about things that are so blatantly false.

I suggest you that you take the time to understand the fundamentals of what makes science a study of the effects of Nature and why there is this thing called "scientific discovery". Perhaps this article my help: IN SEARCH OF FIRST CAUSE

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suggest you that you take the time to understand the fundamentals of what makes science a study of the effects of Nature and why there is this thing called "scientific discovery". Perhaps this article my help: IN SEARCH OF FIRST CAUSE

You've already tried presenting that before in previous threads.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Oh look, another science-denier posting on the internet on a computer or hand-held device powered by channelled or stored electricity.

If you want a way to destroy irony meters en masse, this is the best way to do it.

 

[TDselector]

You've already tried presenting that before in previous threads.

Yes, the facts remain. The logic we use to perceive reality is the same for both science and religion. We think that existence of a super natural "being" or an elementary particle (Higgs boson) begets the existence of the universe, i.e., existence is self causal. The very Nature of our reality clearly demonstrates via the Final Selection Thought Experiment that in real life our perception of reality is at best, ***-backwards. There is no such thing as "GOD" or "GODS" for the simple fact that the two acts of selection govern our existence not some make-believe deity.

As far as the validity of science is concerned it, as confirmed by its own methods of studying effects and not their origins, is an incomplete study of Nature which in turn makes it a pseudo-science.