A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world." (page 6)

AuldSoul

hamilcarr: The realisation that people with totally different beliefs and divergent political systems have the same elementary moral codes, points at the fact that morality somehow is part of our "nature" in whatever shape or form. Theft, rape and murder are never considered virtues, while generosity, altrutistic behavior and willingness to cooperate are seen as virtues in almost all societes, even in more "primitive" cultures (cf. potlatch).

Interesting cherry-picked choice of examples of immorality, there, hamilcarr.

Let's go with theft first: If all property belongs to the government, the government cannot steal, right? Should all property belong to the government so that it cannot ever be accused of taking what belongs to someone else? What if everything belongs to everyone, is it possible to steal anything? Of course not. Should everything belong to everyone? If not, why not? If so, why? People have beliefs on each side of THAT issue; whole civilizations have been built around each idea and its counteridea. Is it stealing to embezzle money or falsify the reported value of a company? Is that a lesser crime, stealing from many thousands of people, than is taking someone's car?

Rape: Most people would agree that rape is morally bad. But, what is rape? Suddenly, depending on the culture you ask and the belief system held, you get a wide variety of answers. Is it rape if a girl is dressed like a trollop and "goes looking for it"? I don't personally agree that this has anything to do with whether someone was raped, but ask any prosecutor in the country and they can clue you in better than any laboratory questionairre regarding what your "moral" civilization thinks about the matter.

Murder: Is is murder if there is a political objective and someone is standing in the way of that objective? Is it state sanctioned murder to kill people for their crimes?

Even within the moral issues you chose, which are among the easiest to get social consensus on, there is a LOT of moral debate going on right now in the most developed nations of the world. There is no "clear moral norm". In fact, I daresay there exists readily obtainable proof of its non-existence.

I think you have bought what someone sold you. That meme won't be adopted by me.

—AuldSoul

AuldSoul

Trevor: The squirrel in the garden really exists. It eats the nuts they put out and digs holes in their lawn.

Abiogenesis, however, doesn't really exist. It is only conceptualized to have possibly existed. So, it is not like the squirrel.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

quietlyleaving

I see what you are sayng

The squirrel in the garden really exists. It eats the nuts they put out and digs holes in their lawn.
The Elf someone believes is in their garden, may exist in reality or may be a figment of their imagination.

But for aguments sake and for simplicity

For someone who is blind the squirrel in the garden may exist as something else in their imagination perhaps even as an elf

My perspective is that reality itself is a human construct and a part of an imaginative engagement

trevor

AuldSoul

Abiogenesis, however, doesn't really exist. It is only conceptualized to have possibly existed. So, it is not like the squirrel.

You have successfully explained the difference between reality and conceptualisation.

We can observed the natural world we live in and conclude there must have been a creator as life does not come from non life. Leaving us with the dilemma of where the creator came from. Or we may adopt evolution as the answer.

Our conclusions are just conclusions. They are conclusions because they end our search for the answer to how the world came into being.

It could just be that God or the idea of God will remain a nameless, incomprehensible mystery. All attempts to define God could just become tricks of the mind?

AuldSoul

But, Trevor, evolutionists claim that evolution does not even attempt to explain origin. Which leaves the question of origin unanswered entirely.

Have I been misinformed about the boundaries of evolution's explanatory capacity?

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

trevor

For someone who is blind the squirrel in the garden may exist as something else in their imagination perhaps even as an elf

I know squirrels are real because my Elf dreams about them.

AuldSoul

Trevor: We can observed the natural world we live in and conclude there must have been a creator as life does not come from non life. Leaving us with the dilemma of where the creator came from. Or we may adopt evolution as the answer.

This is a deceptively false premise I have been handed many times before. I understand why people are fooled by it so easily.

No carbon-based life arises from non-life. If the Creator is carbon-based then we must answer the question of the Creator's origin. As to any variety of life other than carbon-based, we know nothing at all of its nature. Doesn't that frame the problem more realistically, when we admit the distinct limitations of our own perceptions?

If the Creator is not carbon-based then the Creator is outside the bounds of what we readily identify as and have labeled as 'life'. Isn't that so? Since we have never examined such a lifeform we know nothing about what we can reasonably assume regarding it. Had you ever thought about that before?

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

trevor

AuldSoul - You read my comments as though they were offering answers. I have not come to a conclusion and do not wish to. A conclusion would be an end and this subject is too interesting to be ended.

As I said above. 'It could just be that God or the idea of God will remain a nameless, incomprehensible mystery. All attempts to define God could just become tricks of the mind?'

real one

Gopher says:

REAL ONE -- This eternal God you describe, lived an extremely long time or forever all alone. Why did he create beings (angels, humans) whose sole purpose in life is to worship him? Is he that insecure? Does he constantly need praise? There's a word for people like that (egomaniacs), is that how your God is? If you said he created people so that they could enjoy their life, that would at least be logical

You need logic? What is logic to God? you seem to think you are smarter than him. So go ahead Eve eat the fruit!

If we praise, worship, and OBEY him we will enjoy life beyond our little minds capabilities of understanding.

AuldSoul

My point was not an attempt to reach a conclusion, Trevor. My point was to demonstrate that those who choose to conclude that there was a Creator are not necessarily left with the question of the origin of the Creator because all life need not follow the observable and testable rules of carbon-based life simply because that is the sort of life we can most easily examine. When it comes to direct examination of all other sorts of life we are currently blind, so those particular squirrels may as well be elves.

I am not offering conclusions, either. Apart from stating our ignorance of the precise nature of God—a statement I feel confident we agree on—I was asking questions.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

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

Share this