A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."

by Terry 384 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Terry

Once he starts pulling a Universe out of his hat ex nihilo then I'll start believing.
You've stumbled across a foundational concept here.
The bedrock of science is that ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED.
This eliminates the creation of energy (which=mass) by anybody, even God.
The idea of EX Nihilo (out of nothing) is illusory. Aquinas and Augustine have had their crack at it.
Back to the Topic!
The basis for God's LOVE for mankind seems to come down to no foundation, no basis, no precedent and no justice.
He just does.
Is that about it as far as your answer goes? Or, did I miss something?
BurnTheShips

The bedrock of science is that ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED.
This is true according to our current understainding, in this Universe, under the laws which govern it, which had their commencement as well.
Burn
BTW, there are strains of Christian thought that indicate that the God made the Universe out of a preexistent matter, so it is not all or nothing.
Burn
Terry

The bedrock of science is that ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED.
This is true according to our current understainding, in this Universe, under the laws which govern it, which had their commencement as well.
Burn
BTW, there are strains of Christian thought that indicate that the God made the Universe out of a preexistent matter, so it is not all or nothing.
Burn
You seem to be placing your argument on both ends at the same time!
Would this mean you don't even know where YOU stand?
BurnTheShips

Would this mean you don't even know where YOU stand?
No, it generally means that ex nihilo may not be make or break for Christian thought, as some ancient strains of Christian thought posit creation by God out of a primordial chaos.
I subscribe to ex nihilo myself.
But I don't have to justify my stand, or lack of one to you. I don't need to know everything. The tone of your post is rude.
Terry

But I don't have to justify my stand, or lack of one to you. I don't need to know everything. The tone of your post is rude.
I'm rude?
If anything, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't just blurt things out without any basis or proof behind them.
Irrational belief is superstition. By asking you to explain or source your comment I automatically assumed your belief was based on something rational and not mere assertion.
Saying that you "don't need to know everything" is pretty weak. I didn't ask you to explain "everything" did I?
My comment is in response to your Ex Nihilo comment made first.
Once he starts pulling a Universe out of his hat ex nihilo then I'll start believing.
Burn
Or, wasn't the tone of that comment meant to be rude?
I think you play by a double standard, my friend and just got caught at it.
BurnTheShips

Double standard?! ROFL. You think you can brute force everything and reduce it down to your reason. And not just any reason, your reason. Implict in this is the idea that somehow your brain can encompass everything. My response was that not all Christian thought regarding the Beginning is ex nihilo. There are ex materia viewpoints as well. You take that as somehow arguing from both ends, and you completely misunderstand. You make the matter as black and white when even within Christianity it has not been. You then go on to (it seems to me) insinuate that I do not even know where I stand. I believe in ex nihilo, and current evidence seems to align very well with the Augustinian viewpoint.
Burn
Terry

Double standard?! ROFL. You think you can brute force everything and reduce it down to your reason. And not just any reason, your reason. Implict in this is the idea that somehow your brain can encompass everything. My response was that not all Christian thought regarding the Beginning is ex nihilo. There are ex materia viewpoints as well. You take that as somehow arguing from both ends, and you completely misunderstand. You make the matter as black and white when even within Christianity it has not been. You then go on to (it seems to me) insinuate that I do not even know where I stand. I believe in ex nihilo, and current evidence seems to align very well with the Augustinian viewpoint.
Simple things aren't understood. Simple things like God's reason for LOVING the same world He condemned. Yet, these simple things are turned into complex doctrines and asserted to be so TRUE they must be accepted and believed.
What is wrong with this picture?
Within "Christianity" NOTHING is agreed upon. If it were would there be hundreds and hundreds of competing churches each claiming Truth?
Christianity is a mess of chaotic assertions without fact, principle or proof and ALWAYS HAS BEEN historically.
That is what strikes me as so curious about your willingness to take a contrary point of view WITHOUT any reasons to set forth justifying the position you have staked out!
Do you remember anywhere in scripture a statement to the effect that YOU MUST give a reason for your hope to any who demand it of you?
Why were the Boreans more "noble minded" than the rest? Weren't they commended for actually taking the time and trouble to DAILY examine whether things were SO or NOT?
Doesn't sound like a template for complacency to me.
You either have a REASON for what you believe or you are just pulling things out of your own EX NIHILO.
That should certainly be embarassing for you to admit. I can see why you have your back up.
BurnTheShips

Within "Christianity" NOTHING is agreed upon.
You can only impose uniformity with force. That is it. There are large groups that believe certain things. There is a lowest common denominator. C.S. Lewis called this "mere Christianity".
You can pick some splinter of a splinter in upper Idaho and say SEE THEY THINK THE LORD IS A POTATO.
Even in science there is plurality of opinion on a great many things. And in the humanities? It is all perspective!
That is what strikes me as so curious about your willingness to take a contrary point of view WITHOUT any reasons to set forth justifying the position you have staked out!
I never took the contrary position. Read. I only mentioned it.
Do you remember anywhere in scripture a statement to the effect that YOU MUST give a reason for your hope to any who demand it of you?
And creation whether ex nihilo or ex materia, it is a PERIPHERAL ISSUE.
That should certainly be embarassing for you to admit. I can see why you have your back up.
And you are a fool that is engaging a straw man and not an actual statement that I have put forth as something I believe. Desperation?
Burn
Terry

Within "Christianity" NOTHING is agreed upon.
You can only impose uniformity with force. That is it. There are large groups that believe certain things. There is a lowest common denominator. C.S. Lewis called this "mere Christianity".
Ah, C.S.Lews, the poor man's G.K.Chesterton!
I would not hasten to build my life and core beliefs around anybody's version of the "lowest common denominator." But, that's, of course, your choice.
Even in science there is plurality of opinion on a great many things. And in the humanities? It is all perspective!
Oh dear! Opinion isn't what science is about, my friend. The Scientific Method is more rigorous than religious belief. The Scientific Method has actual standards of measurement, falsifiability and universality. Persepective is a curious word choice on your part. I wonder if you thought about it before you employed it?
E=MC2 is not a matter of perspective, is it?
Energy and Mass are equivalent in a particular and specific way. Any other way (or perspective) yields nothing at all. The Nazi's perspective on splitting the atom was off just enough for the Allies to obtain the upper hand.
I think you are fishing in waters too deep for your bait.
BurnTheShips

Ah, C.S.Lews, the poor man's G.K.Chesterton!
What's that got to do with anything?
I would not hasten to build my life and core beliefs around anybody's version of the "lowest common denominator." But, that's, of course, your choice.
What an elitist jackass!! What, should I build my life around your version of anything? You are a fundamentalist and scientism is your own narrow orthodoxy.
Oh dear! Opinion isn't what science is about, my friend. The Scientific Method is more rigorous than religious belief. The Scientific Method has actual standards of measurement, falsifiability and universality. Persepective is a curious word choice on your part. I wonder if you thought about it before you employed it?
So science is cut and dried? Science explains itself? Who performs science? Who explains the meaning of data? Who comes up with the hypotheses to test? Why are there alternative models even in "hard" science fields and why haven't these been dismissed yet if scientific truth is so final? Why do these still exist? Science is never final, it is progressive. I know exactly why I used "perspective".
Your scientismistic singlemindedness means that the only things that are true are those that are empirical and "falsifiable". You are no different from a Protestant fundie that rejects science and adheres to a strictly Bible-literalist, religious worldview and eschews science as the work of da debil. You consistently do away with all religious, and metaphysical truth because for you the only truth is that which is accessible to the scientific method. You have a gaping hole in your mind. You are a science absolutist.
E=MC2 is not a matter of perspective, is it?
It sure is. Even Einstein's theory maintains that measurements are relative to the inertial reference frame of the observer. And even E=MC2 cannot escape indeterminacy at certain scales. Virtual particles Lamb shift measurements at the quantum levels and the equation does not balance. The law of conservation of matter/energy gets violated. The appearance of VPs is indeterminate. Some even say they are proof of ex nihilo (I am not one of them).
I think you are fishing in waters too deep for your bait.
I think you've gone off the deep end.

A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."

Share this