2 Questions

[POI]

1. Why did God create anything at all?
2. What arena/space/other did God dwell within or upon before he first had to create it?

[AquinasForGod]

Yes, I am sure that our Fathers understand it correctly. A mythical text like Genesis should not be read so literally.

I find this answer quite convenient, since 'science' does not agree with things Genesis asserts. It's funny how apologists, like yourself, will reach this conclusion, to avoid problems

You assume it is to avoid problems rather than just me understanding the nature of the literature and its purpose.

Hmm, then I guess Bible literalists are just mistaken. Can you please explain how you know the stories in which now look to be far-fetched were not meant to be literal by the author?

Yes. hermeneutics. It is a big topic.

[POI]

Yes. hermeneutics. It is a big topic.

Yes, it is a big topic. I've debated hermeneutic scholars who argue Genesis is literal. Since many hermeneutic scholars argue for a literal Genesis, then mentioning "hermeneutic" does not appear to get us any closer to what IS true.

Hence, I ask again, can you please explain how you know the stories in which now look to be far-fetched were not meant to be literal by the author? I'll await your reply in 1-6 weeks

[RugMatic]

1. Why did God create anything at all?
2. What arena/space/other did God dwell within or upon before he first had to create it?

I imagine, and only imagination is bold enough to contemplate the incomprehensible, that his life lacked the dynamics that a material realm, with material creatures with material needs, would provide. By his life , I mean to express the totality of God, the entirety of every aspect of God, the sum total of every concept of personal characteristics, be they traits or attributes or anything else our feeble language and our feeble minds might consider relevant to selfhood.

Selfhood provides selfhood. Nothing more nothing less. If God needed nothing, then nothingness is synonymous with God! Nothingness is self-sufficient. Nothingness needs nothing. Everything theologians and philosophers say about a static self-sufficient deity , can equally be said about nothingness. Nothingness is measureless. Nothingness is boundless. Nothingness has no limits or obstacles to contend with. Nothingness is unbreakable, unconquerable. Nothingness is eternal, infinite. It never increases or decreases. Nothingness is beyond comprehension. Nothingness is unknowable.

As for your second question, whatever realm preceded the material realm is unknowable to me and irrelevant. Christ will return to this Earth, and renew the material realm in a manner exceedingly delightful beyond my fiercest longings of a world where suffering is abolished and all life is truly living. Resurrected bodies with the mysterious amalgamation of spiritual and physical. A resurrected Earth with a curious combination of spiritual and physical qualities forever beyond the pain of this currently wrecked world of misery and woe.


I'd rather be a jolly saint Francis singing canticles, than a dour, sobersides nihilist mumbling flippancy and frivolity! Though sometimes I'm tempted to give nihilism a go

[POI]

[Replying to RugMatic in post #113]

Out of curiosity, would you consider yourself a 'minimal facts' Christian?

[JehovahsWitness]

Nothingness is beyond comprehension. Nothingness is unknowable.

Probably because "nothingness" (in the sense in a total absence of anything that exists) is a logical impossibility. If a infinite God exists, then nothingness cannot.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to RugMatic in post #113]

Hey RugMatic…I’m trying to grasp what you mean by ‘nothingness’. You make predications of it, but some of those seem to contradict with the traditional understanding of nothingness (as the total absence of everything). Does your definition differ from that? If so, how would you define it?

[RugMatic]

[Replying to RugMatic in post #113]

Hey RugMatic…I’m trying to grasp what you mean by ‘nothingness’. You make predications of it, but some of those seem to contradict with the traditional understanding of nothingness (as the total absence of everything). Does your definition differ from that? If so, how would you define it?

Yes, the total absence of everything, but I must insist that nothing contradicted it in the abstract. If so how and why? You know, debate.

[RugMatic]

[Replying to RugMatic in post #113]

Out of curiosity, would you consider yourself a 'minimal facts' Christian?

I'm not familiar with that denomination.

I'm not a fundamentalist, which is a fairly recent Christian ideology, if that's what you're asking.

I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. It doesn't claim to be, and obviously isn't.

I'm somewhat perplexed with this debate site. I take a fair amount of time presenting my thingumajigs, and especially other people's thingumajigs, but I repeatedly get one sentence quips! I was fairly optimistic about this place.

[The Tanager]

Yes, the total absence of everything, but I must insist that nothing contradicted it in the abstract.

I would gather that is because of the other definitions you give to the descriptor terms you are using, so perhaps I should ask for definitions for those.

Self-sufficient - this is about being able to satisfy the needs and desires one does have. But nothingness doesn’t have needs. So what do you mean by ‘self-sufficient’?

Measureless, boundless, no limits, eternal, infinite - are about having no bounds or limits in the sense of there is something there that keeps going. Such as there is no limit to God’s love, where love is an actual thing that exists. Nothingness doesn’t fit that sense.

Unbreakable, unconquerable - are also used about a thing that is too hard to be broken or conquered, where nothingness isn’t a thing that has either a characteristic of being 'soft' or 'hard', etc.

As far as nothingness being beyond comprehension and unknowable, I don’t see why that is the case. A total absence of everything seems very easily comprehensible to me. What’s not comprehensible about that?

[POI]

I'm not familiar with that denomination.

It's not a 'denomination.' Do you, more-or-less, follow this credo?

"The minimal facts approach is a method of establishing the truth of Jesus' resurrection based on a small number of historical facts. The facts are considered to be so well-attested that nearly all scholars agree on them, even skeptical ones. The minimal facts approach Jesus' death by crucifixion, Jesus' empty tomb, Jesus' post-mortem appearances to his disciples, Jesus' post-mortem appearance to Paul, and Jesus' post-mortem appearance to James."

I'm not a fundamentalist, which is a fairly recent Christian ideology, if that's what you're asking. I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. It doesn't claim to be, and obviously isn't.

1) The other interlocutor (RBD) is one, which I why I'm engaging him with more vigor here.

2) However, the fundamentalist can argue that the Bible is meant to be inerrant and can use the Bible to back up that claim. Which begs the question, which passages of the Bible do you ignore to favor your own chosen position?

I'm somewhat perplexed with this debate site. I take a fair amount of time presenting my thingumajigs, and especially other people's thingumajigs, but I repeatedly get one sentence quips! I was fairly optimistic about this place.

I wanted to get your exact position before I responded. The answer you gave, in your last response, suggests that maybe all that matters is that Jesus rose, and you can basically give a rat's a$$ about whether or not the rest of these presented issues actually pan out logically. As for the 'quips', if you follow my interaction(s), you will see that I usually do not engage in such