Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:50 pm
by Michael
I believe your thoughts on Grace are scripturally sound, but I don't think they really address my question here (unless you're suggesting God showed each of us unmerritted favour by simply bring us into existence, which would just be another way of saying that He did it out of love, which is what Barth said.)

The question here is whether it makes sense to say (as Barth does) that a God who created ex nihilo did so out of love (or as an act of unmerritted favor, if you prefer)?

I asked this same question on another forum, and someone (apparently an atheist) suggested "Maybe we are His model train track. A guy's gotta have a hobby, you know."

To which I replied
I would assume from your sarcastic tone that you don't believe in God, or that a God who created ex nihilo could have done so out of love (because He wanted to share something worth sharing with finite creatures), and you probably believe death is a state of total oblivion.
Do you see any category error in saying it's better to be dead (in a state of non-existence) than burning alive (as that Jordanian pilot captured by Isis was in his last moments here on earth)?

And if there's no category error in saying that, would there be any category error in saying it's better to be alive, and enjoying marital sex in a warm bed, than it is to be non-existant?

Do you see any category errors in the above proposition that an excrutiatingly painful existence is worse than non-existence, or that a pleasurable existence is better than non eixistence?

Assuming that the guitone was quicker than being beheaded by the back and forth sawing action used by today's knife weilding Islamist extreamists (and assuming that death equals oblivian), would you see any category error in saying that it was better to be beheaded during the French Revolution than in modern day Syria and Iraq (or that it's better to be beheaded than burned alive, like that poor Jordanian pilot was)?

That's the question I'm asking.

Does it make sense to say (as Karl Barth does) that a Trinitarian God who created ex nihilo brought finite beings into existence because He wanted to share the valuble possibilities of existence with them--things like the love shared between the persons of the Trinity, and joy, and happiness?

Does it make sense to say that existing, and being able to experience such things has some intrinsic value when compared to not existing, and not being able to experience anything (or is that a category error)?

That's the question I'm asking here.

Do you have any thoughts on it?