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?

[RugMatic]

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?

I'm not tech-savvy. I don't know how to format separate quotes, so I'll address your questions numerically.

1 Yes, I personified nothingness to make a point. Many Biblical authors personified abstracts, sush as wisdom and sin, to make their points. The philosophers of antiquity personified abstracts to make their points. Early Christian thinkers personified abstracts to make their points. I mainly read old literature, and am greatly influenced by it, so I probably articulate myself in an archaic, odd manner. The most recent publication in my humble library is dated 1961, the rest are far older.


2 Self-sufficient. Once again, in the vein of ancient thought, I personified nothingness. Nothingness has no self, but it as a thing in the abstract. I can't imagine nothingness being deficient, but I can imagine it being sufficient, ie., adequate enough for being an abstract. Notice how people often use the word being, when they speak of nothingness. Peculiar indeed!

3 I never said nothingness loves anything. I'd hope it wouldn't fit in that sense.

4 You said unbreakable can " also be used for a thing that is hard," ... nothingness isn't hard" so my illustration presumably breaks down. Your word also breaks your point. If the word unbreakable is reserved only for something that isn't glass, than language is no longer language, and thoughts are no longer thoughts, and also means nothing.

5 You said nothingness is easy to understand and knowable. I was comparing the similarities between a static, self-sufficient deity and nothingness. I've never had a relationship with either. Both are incomprehensible to my mind, though I suppose I could toss a few words at them. You said an absence of everything is easily comprehensible to you. Even as a lad, I often wondered if nothingness is the absence of everything and anything, then how can I even think of it. Whatever nothingness is, it can't be said to lack our thoughts of it.

Thanks for your time. 1st thoughtful response I've received on this site. You made my day

[RugMatic]

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

I don't know how to format quotes, so I'll respond to your comments numerically.

1 I don't read Christian apologetics. I find most Christian apologists to be intellectually dishonest, and just plain goofy. So I'm not particularly interested with their playpen, and definitely not influenced by it. I believe that Jesus wasn't dead any more on the 3rd day. The resurrection seems to have been a mysterious amalgamation of spirit and flesh. Paul's analogy of the seed versus the plant it becomes, coupled with the will of God, is his understanding of the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:35-38, and presumably what he saw when he experienced the resurrected Christ.

Mark ends with an empty tomb and some chicks scared out of their witts, but invites the reader metaphorically, with his brilliant cliff-hanger, to go to Galilee, for there you'll see him. It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me. What matters to me is what I experienced! If Christianity were based soley on what the disciples experienced then it wouldn't be a religion at all.

Galilee comes from the word galal, to roll, and the stone was indeed rolled away from the tomb. I assume this was Mark's intent for having the rendezvous take place in Galilee. A spiritual word play. Luke changes go to Galilee and see him, to remember what he said in Galilee, 24:6, and has it take place in Jerusalem. The authors of the gospels were telling religious stories to encourage faith in Christ, not chronological historical facts. In my opinion Matthew used Mark, and Luke used Matthew and Mark.

Paul doesn't mention a tomb, just a burial, but most Jews were buried in tombs in imitation of their Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who were buried in a cave. Israel has an abundance of rocky hills and mountainous landscapes, and Jews have buried their dead in rock hewn tombs for centuries. So Paul wouldn't bother mentioning a tomb, because it would be redundant. The Hebrew word for bury is also used for hewing out tombs in the Old Testament.

2 I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. It doesn't claim to be. I'm not a fundamentalist, and fundamentalism is a fairly recent faction in Christendom. They can defend their own position.

I wouldn't say I ignore any verse in the Bible. The Bible argues with itself constantly, and I argue with it as well.

3 I wouldn't say I don't give a rat's a$$ about anything other then Jesus' resurrection. That would be a strange life to live. I try to be intellectually honest about the Bible. I don't see anything virtuous about being a pious liar. Falsehood doesn't glorify God, ourselves, or any endeavor of any sort.

[The Tanager]

Thank you for your kind words. We do have some intelligent discussions every now and then here, so stick with us.

3 I never said nothingness loves anything. I'd hope it wouldn't fit in that sense.

First, to clarify, I didn’t mean to compare God and nothingness regarding love, but to make a point that since the concept of nothingness isn’t that it is a thing, that is why those descriptions don’t fit.

4 You said unbreakable can " also be used for a thing that is hard," ... nothingness isn't hard" so my illustration presumably breaks down. Your word also breaks your point. If the word unbreakable is reserved only for something that isn't glass, than language is no longer language, and thoughts are no longer thoughts, and also means nothing.

The ‘also’ refers to the previous point that nothingness, conceptually, isn’t a “thing” that can have characteristics like being bounded or unbounded. Other characteristics that nothingness couldn’t have at all include whether it is hard/unbreakable, soft/breakable, etc.

5 You said nothingness is easy to understand and knowable. I was comparing the similarities between a static, self-sufficient deity and nothingness. I've never had a relationship with either. Both are incomprehensible to my mind, though I suppose I could toss a few words at them. You said an absence of everything is easily comprehensible to you. Even as a lad, I often wondered if nothingness is the absence of everything and anything, then how can I even think of it. Whatever nothingness is, it can't be said to lack our thoughts of it.

But aren’t we thinking about what a “lack” is, or a negation of (other) things, not ‘nothingness’ as though it is a positive thing of its own that we are thinking of? I think that is what your wondering, even as a lad, is missing.

[RugMatic]

Thank you for your kind words. We do have some intelligent discussions every now and then here, so stick with us.

3 I never said nothingness loves anything. I'd hope it wouldn't fit in that sense.

First, to clarify, I didn’t mean to compare God and nothingness regarding love, but to make a point that since the concept of nothingness isn’t that it is a thing, that is why those descriptions don’t fit.

4 You said unbreakable can " also be used for a thing that is hard," ... nothingness isn't hard" so my illustration presumably breaks down. Your word also breaks your point. If the word unbreakable is reserved only for something that isn't glass, than language is no longer language, and thoughts are no longer thoughts, and also means nothing.

The ‘also’ refers to the previous point that nothingness, conceptually, isn’t a “thing” that can have characteristics like being bounded or unbounded. Other characteristics that nothingness couldn’t have at all include whether it is hard/unbreakable, soft/breakable, etc.

5 You said nothingness is easy to understand and knowable. I was comparing the similarities between a static, self-sufficient deity and nothingness. I've never had a relationship with either. Both are incomprehensible to my mind, though I suppose I could toss a few words at them. You said an absence of everything is easily comprehensible to you. Even as a lad, I often wondered if nothingness is the absence of everything and anything, then how can I even think of it. Whatever nothingness is, it can't be said to lack our thoughts of it.

But aren’t we thinking about what a “lack” is, or a negation of (other) things, not ‘nothingness’ as though it is a positive thing of its own that we are thinking of? I think that is what your wondering, even as a lad, is missing.

You're making my original point without even realizing it. If nothingness has no characteristics that can be bound or unbound and God has no characteristics that can be bound or unbound, then god is synonymous with nothingness. Bear in mind the topic: why did God create anything at all? Nobody seems to grasp the topic of the OP.

I imagined that god's life lacked the dynamics that a material realm, with material creatures with material needs, would provide. This can neither be proven or disproven, but a static self-sufficient deity that didn't need to create anything can be disproven. Anything said about a static self-sufficient deity can also be said of nothingness.

That's a bold claim to say nothingness is not a positive thing. If nothingness has no abstract value then why is it constantly used as a talking point among theologians and philosophers and even scientists? That is what your wondering is missing. Nobody can prove nothingness has no purpose, but people are constantly talking about nothingness, so something peculiar is going on.

[The Tanager]

You're making my original point without even realizing it. If nothingness has no characteristics that can be bound or unbound and God has no characteristics that can be bound or unbound, then god is synonymous with nothingness. Bear in mind the topic: why did God create anything at all? Nobody seems to grasp the topic of the OP.

I imagined that god's life lacked the dynamics that a material realm, with material creatures with material needs, would provide. This can neither be proven or disproven, but a static self-sufficient deity that didn't need to create anything can be disproven. Anything said about a static self-sufficient deity can also be said of nothingness.

But God does have characteristics that can be bounded or unbounded, so they aren't synonymous. The amount to which one loves can be bounded or unbounded, for instance.

That's a bold claim to say nothingness is not a positive thing. If nothingness has no abstract value then why is it constantly used as a talking point among theologians and philosophers and even scientists? That is what your wondering is missing. Nobody can prove nothingness has no purpose, but people are constantly talking about nothingness, so something peculiar is going on.

I didn't say nothingness has no abstract value, I said it isn't a positive thing. By its very definition it is a lack of all positive thing-ness. Abstract concepts can be positive or negative, so 'nothingness' still has value in the discussions you speak of. Nothing peculiar at all. As to your comment about purpose, it's absolutely 100% certain that 'nothingness' has no purpose, because it is built in to the definition itself.

[RugMatic]

You're making my original point without even realizing it. If nothingness has no characteristics that can be bound or unbound and God has no characteristics that can be bound or unbound, then god is synonymous with nothingness. Bear in mind the topic: why did God create anything at all? Nobody seems to grasp the topic of the OP.

I imagined that god's life lacked the dynamics that a material realm, with material creatures with material needs, would provide. This can neither be proven or disproven, but a static self-sufficient deity that didn't need to create anything can be disproven. Anything said about a static self-sufficient deity can also be said of nothingness.

But God does have characteristics that can be bounded or unbounded, so they aren't synonymous. The amount to which one loves can be bounded or unbounded, for instance.

That's a bold claim to say nothingness is not a positive thing. If nothingness has no abstract value then why is it constantly used as a talking point among theologians and philosophers and even scientists? That is what your wondering is missing. Nobody can prove nothingness has no purpose, but people are constantly talking about nothingness, so something peculiar is going on.

I didn't say nothingness has no abstract value, I said it isn't a positive thing. By its very definition it is a lack of all positive thing-ness. Abstract concepts can be positive or negative, so 'nothingness' still has value in the discussions you speak of. Nothing peculiar at all. As to your comment about purpose, it's absolutely 100% certain that 'nothingness' has no purpose, because it is built in to the definition itself.

You're talking about an active God. I said a static, self-sufficient deity that didn't need to create anything. Remember the topic: why did God create anything at all? I haven't seen anyone other then myself address the actual OP. A god that didn't need to create anything, wouldn't have created anything. Even the slightest notion of wanting to create anything puts us back to square one, he needed to.

One last time. A static, self-sufficient deity that didn't need to create anything, wouldn't have created anything, and being forever a static, self-sufficient deity is forever being synonymous with nothingness.


Ok, now you. Why the heck did God create anything?

[BrotherBerry]

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?

God created everything to prove that He is God and that we are not.

He lived in Heaven. Hope this helps. To learn more go to www.Gotquestions.org.

[The Tanager]

You're talking about an active God. I said a static, self-sufficient deity that didn't need to create anything. Remember the topic: why did God create anything at all? I haven't seen anyone other then myself address the actual OP. A god that didn't need to create anything, wouldn't have created anything. Even the slightest notion of wanting to create anything puts us back to square one, he needed to.

One last time. A static, self-sufficient deity that didn't need to create anything, wouldn't have created anything, and being forever a static, self-sufficient deity is forever being synonymous with nothingness.


Ok, now you. Why the heck did God create anything?

(1) Have you read the entire thread? Quite a few people answered the question, including myself. My initial response was in post #10. Feel free to read it and respond to it or the other posts I made along those lines.

(2) As to my responses to you, I wasn’t talking about an active God in particular. Yes, a God who loves would have to be active, but that was just an example characteristic for my more general point. A static, self-sufficient deity could also have characteristics that can be bounded or unbounded.

(3) Why do you think a self-sufficient deity that didn’t need to create anything, wouldn’t have created anything? Why can’t something create for a reason other than need?

(4) Even a static, self-sufficient deity wouldn’t be synonymous with nothingness because it is a positive thing, while nothingness is the complete lack of everything.

[otseng]

a rat's a$$

Moderator Comment

2. Profanity and obscenity of any sort are not allowed (this includes words that are abbreviated or coded).

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JehovahsWitness]

Galilee comes from the word galal, to roll, and the stone was indeed rolled away from the tomb.

Nice. Except of course Jesus wasn't buried in Galilee but in Judea. Jesus wad buried near Jerusalem.