The Black Vault

event_horizon wrote:Same difference. If "God always was" then obviously one must deduce that
"God" didn't come from anything. Hence, "God" came from nothing.

event...that logic doesn't hold.^ If he always was, he never came from "nothing"
(materialization-spirit or material) or ever came from anything (secular con-
conclusion).

G-d's existence is a bit more out of the box...try figuring what may be beyond
your imagination. If you can't...then the imagination that you sport is limited.

Hi,

Thanks Screamzero, that's what I meant! Lol, sometimes its hard to relate metaphysical matters, but you know what I meant.


There must be something in order to have nothing. God was the creator of both, but did not come from either, even though God exists within both as a reflection I believe.

Item7

You're both missing the point.

Sproul is implying that our lives are meaningless as we came from "nothing". I fail to see how it is any more meaningful to have just been there always, for no reason, forever.

Where is the meaning in God's existence, apart from that he creates himself?

If God can create meaning for himself, so can we. Ergo, Sproul's argument is not valid unless he accepts that his own God is a purposeless, meaningless, nothing, who has no reason to care about us in the slightest. Eternal existence, in my opinion, is more meaningless than an existence that ends.

I'm reminded of the line from Troy - "The Gods envy us because we are mortal".

Hi,

I say to the humanist with all cynicism, if I come from nothing, if I’m going to nothing, I am nothing, and why should I care who sits on the front of the bus or on the back of the bus? What do I care if its white germs or black germs that have rights in this world?

- RC Sproul


Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Sproul is saying that the fact that we do care stems from the fact that we are beings with morals and values.

Morals/values have always been connected to a spiritual side of human nature, rather than just a flesh being, we are more. The idea of caring about others sets us apart from other animals, in a way which seems to be saying we are more than just flesh, we are also spirit.

That's my thoughts anyway.


Item7

Item7 wrote:Hi,

I say to the humanist with all cynicism, if I come from nothing, if I’m going to nothing, I am nothing, and why should I care who sits on the front of the bus or on the back of the bus? What do I care if its white germs or black germs that have rights in this world?

- RC Sproul


Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Sproul is saying that the fact that we do care stems from the fact that we are beings with morals and values.

Morals/values have always been connected to a spiritual side of human nature, rather than just a flesh being, we are more. The idea of caring about others sets us apart from other animals, in a way which seems to be saying we are more than just flesh, we are also spirit.

That's my thoughts anyway.


Item7

I'm not sure I agree that was Sproul's point, but even if it was, atheists believe in morals and values too. They are a product of advanced intelligence and evolution.

screamzero wrote:

event_horizon wrote:Same difference. If "God always was" then obviously one must deduce that
"God" didn't come from anything. Hence, "God" came from nothing.

event...that logic doesn't hold.^ If he always was, he never came from "nothing"
(materialization-spirit or material) or ever came from anything (secular con-
conclusion).

You can look at it either way, man. Your way doesn't make it any less preposterous.

screamzero wrote:G-d's existence is a bit more out of the box...try figuring what may be beyond
your imagination. If you can't...then the imagination that you sport is limited.

I dunno man...I can imagine some whackjob that looks like a feline and proclaims himself omniscient, sitting behind what appears to him to be some sort megacomputer, pushing a button and creating the universe....but it doesn't make it so.

You seem to imagine your whack jobs well.

Imagine what you will, prove you instigated your imagination in the first place.
That would be an evolution....Preposterous? Imagining you instigated your imagination?
Think real good about that.

Over evolution?....now that is also preposterous...no such thing overly evoluted
and no such thing as self instigated imagination just 'cause you may have a very good one.

Your nut pill is sorely overdue...ain't it always though? Imagine that, instigatively.

"Instigative imagination"? WOW. What kind of freaky deeky crap is THAT? Gimmie summore, this is great stuff!

Did you write the Bible too?

event_horizon wrote:Your nut pill is sorely overdue...ain't it always though? Imagine that, instigatively.

"Instigative imagination"? WOW. What kind of freaky deeky crap is THAT? Gimmie summore, this is great stuff!

Did you write the Bible too?

The word is instigated - verb; not adverb...pin head - in its proper tense the sense is there. The cry is: "You source imagination as opposed to imagination having been sourced to you"...godling that you are...that's the query. Don't go stupid on us. You always get stupid when balking to an obvious answer?

Let's ease your cranial stress: You created your imagination. Yes or no?

We'll take the next step when you learn to answer this simple question.

"Coordinated cognizances" and now "instigative imagination".

Putting words together in such a way is like a spider monkey trying to get it on with an alligator.

You need serious help.