Month: November 2021

A quote which expresses a key error:  “….since God knows what each of them would do in every possible situation, he gets to decide, so to speak, what the upshot will be – which world will be actual….”

We’ll get to the errors in that and why it is not accurate a few paragraphs down but first the general ((…and fallacious…)) Frame/Syllogism off of which that error springboards:

A— If P were in S1, P would do A.
B— If P were in S2, P would not do A.
1— If Adam were in S1, he would obey God.
2— If Adam were in S2, he would not obey God

But First — The Wider Framework:

By which metrics will we Ask/Answer the question of Why Create If Evil Is Possible? Will we employ the metrics of love, reciprocity, self-giving, and so on? Well yes – of course. But then how does the Critic rationally damn love’s begetting of love within The Trinitarian Life as there we find that God Freely Chooses not to create — and so we have [Not-Creating]?

By which metrics will we Ask/Answer the question of Why Create If Evil Is Possible? Will we employ the metrics of love, reciprocity, self-giving, and so on? Well yes – of course. But then how does the Critic rationally damn love’s begetting of love within and through the Divine Decree of the Imago Dei as there we find that God Freely Chooses to Create — and so we have [Creating]?

Is it Good of us and is it Logical of us and does it sum to our factual Valuing-Of-Love on our part if we FAULT God for begetting love vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life wherein we discover Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving with respect to Being in totum? How is it that one can rationally claim (there) that “God Is Un-Loving?

Just the same if we turn it 180 degrees: Is it Good of us and is it Logical of us and does it sum to our factual Valuing-Of-Love on our part if we FAULT God for begetting love in the Creative Act vis-à-vis the Decree of the Imago Dei wherein very Blueprint of “Reality” and hence of All Available Options is ((all over again)) Self/Other in and of Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving with respect to Being in totum?

Clarity is aided by illuminating fundamental distinctions between the metaphysical “Content & Yield” ((…and so necessarily then distinctions in our metrics…)) of the “Pre-Edenic” vs. that of the “The Edenic” vs. that of “Privation” vs. that of “Perfection” ((…specifically regarding the ‘Category’ perfection of our very being as the Adamic…as opposed to the very different ‘Category’ of Perfection which refers to God/Necessary-Being…)). However, before we do that it will be helpful to clear up a few common misunderstandings:

MISUNDERSTANDING 1 — The Fallacy Of The-Greater-Good Theodicy

There is NO such thing as The Greater-Good “thing” for anyone to appeal to. See the following three items:

1— [Gratuitous Evil] Is A Metaphysical Impossibility which is at http://disq.us/p/1vc9vwd and also linked with https://randalrauser.com/2018/08/can-violence-ever-serve-a-redemptive-purpose/#comment-4071850429

Begin Excerpt:

Evil and the Goodness of God:

[1] The Greater Good reality (with respect to [All Things]) is true and is a valid statement about [All Things].

[2] Scripture affirms possible but not necessary evil given God’s decree of the Imago Deiwith respect to the Adamic’s volitional authority to choose possible *worlds*, much less actions… See both [5] and [7].

[3] Minus God: [All Things] whether good or evil or any amalgamation thereof which stream out of The Adamic in number [2] *are* fundamentally and ontologically gratuitous “at bottom“. Indeed, but for God and His Hand, “purpose” finds no grounding, and hence “Minus God” leaves all lines gratuitous.

[4] But God. Full stop. And God is the Necessary Being. Hence, this [4] *necessarily* subsumes [3] which *necessarily* subsumes [2] which *necessarily* subsumes [1].

[5] Creating and decreeing a coin is not decreeing or creating two separate faces, so to speak. It is creating *one* ontological reality with multiple sides. It is *one* creative act, *one* decree. Trinity is like that. Love is like that. God’s decree guarantees that, grounds that.

[6] In all directions, there can be no such thing, no such creation, no such decree, as a one sided coin. God cannot do nonsense. It is no insult to God to state that He cannot do nonsense.

[7] God cannot, ever, create and decree and by creating and decreeing lose control should He grant (any number of) possible worlds to volitional agents.

[8] God uses [All Things] for good and yet greater good and yet greater good. Glory to glory, as it were. He does not “only” use evil. But [All Things].

[9] *God* is our guarantee and our sure anchor in all these things, whether we speak of our own frail attempts at good, or whether we speak of horrific evil, or whether we cannot speak at all but can only pray for we know not what. All appeals start and stop in His Decree, and He has decreed and declared His love for us.

[10A] God is reality’s Anchor. Literally. And therefore our Anchor. Literally. God is our A and our Z. “You are my hope Lord, in you do I trust.”

[10B] As describe earlier, [All Things], not “only” evil things, are used by God, purposed by God, for The Good, the Greater Good, and so on. That reality grounds purpose throughout reality wherever the “Adamic’s” feet shall traverse. There is no number of possible worlds which God can grant the volitional being which can cause God to lose control. (It’s unfortunate that that last sentence even has to be stated).

[10C] That which exists by God’s Decree is that which cannot be otherwise. Hence, such cannot be charged with being gratuitous simply by sheer definition and sheer necessity, else we must call God’s Decree pointless. If God values, and decrees, the Imago Dei, well then we come upon what cannot be a one sided reality there in Eden amid Self/Other, Man/God, but rather we come upon that which is by necessity a two sided reality with respect to God and the Adamic, or the Adamic and God.

[11] Therein, again from earlier:

[A] God uses [All Things] for good and yet greater good and yet greater good. Glory to glory, as it were. He does not “only” use evil. But [All Things].

[B] *God* is our guarantee and our sure anchor in all these things, whether we speak of our own frail attempts at good, or whether we speak of horrific evil, or whether we cannot speak at all but can only pray for we know not what. All appeals start and stop in His Decree, and He has decreed and declared His love for us.

[C] God is reality’s Anchor. Literally. And therefore our Anchor. Literally. God is our A and our Z. “You are my hope Lord, in you do I trust.”

End copy/paste.

In the above “list” notice that some of it requires methodical distinctions and that is so because Causality and God are often confused and we find all sorts of bizarre “Maps” in “Theodicies” which amount to nothing more than incoherent mixtures of the error of Occasionalism and the error of Utility. The error of Occasionalism is obvious and layered over that we’re reminded by A. Stanley that “God will use what He chooses not to remove.”

MISUNDERSTANDING 2 — The Blueprint for the Imago Dei

There is only one Divine Decree of only one Singularity to appeal to, and that is the Decree of the Imago Dei. That Singularity forces what love necessarily entails and what love necessarily leaves out as impossible. The Why/How of that stems from the Blueprint for the Imago Dei which is as follows:

In the Divine Decree of the Imago Dei we come upon Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Being Itself vis-à-vis Self/Other vis-à-vis the Blueprint vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life. In the Christian metanarrative we find the Trinitarian metaphysic and, therein, love’s timeless Self-Giving and irreducible Diffusiveness of the Ontic Self with respect to …being itself… and, thereby – once again – The Always and The Already, that which is ceaselessly Beneath and Above – namely “Love & Necessity” as an ontic *singularity*. It is there that we find in the Christian metaphysic the intellectual and moral grounds for affirming the term, “Love Himself” vis-à-vis the A and the Z of the Trinitarian Life / Trinity with respect to the Decree of the Imago Dei, and all that comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there that we find nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being – and all that comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there in nothing less than Being that we find The Always and The Already constituting love’s timeless reciprocity and Self-Giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum, and all that comes with “that”. It is *that* explanatory terminus which is reality’s rock-bottom, reality’s irreducible substratum – the A and the Z of every possible ontic, of every possible sentence.

The Misunderstanding of WHAT the Blueprint is for the Imago Dei and what that logically necessitates vs. makes logically impossible will be looked at in greater detail as that is perhaps one of the Key “problems” with respect to our approach to the question of Create?/Not-Create?

MISUNDERSTANDING 3 — Terminal Closure

We must ask if our Non-Theist friends or Critics are demanding eternal unending life and wholeness? Perhaps even void of Suffering? If so then they’ve only three options, none of which help them:

1— If they are NOT asking for such an End then they are stopping short of coherence for suffering must enter somewhere and finds only its own eternally open-ended contradiction – leaving their claims finally fallacious. Note that there is no cryptic mystery here as of course we all still “recognize” the Christian’s terms vis-à-vis the moral terms in play here.

2— If they ARE demanding such an end of suffering then again they are demanding what Non-Theism can never give them vis-à-vis the Final Good as per Eternal Life as per Unending Wholeness…. and so on.

3— [Death] is the #1 Killer in the World. Therefore [Eternal Life] and nothing less is the #1 dissolution of our #1 problem. In fact, BUT FOR [Eternal Life] there is no Ontic Resolution of the #1 killer in the World.

So again we ask, what does “Ending Evil” necessarily “look like”? The following “To Create / Not-Create” discussion is (…in part…) a brief observation of that as per a. http://disq.us/p/1xv6v4f and b.http://disq.us/p/1slxh6k and c. http://disq.us/p/1xr6yav

MISUNDERSTANDING 4 — Free Will Is Not The End-All Good Or The Goal Full Stop

 Just as we discussed the fallacious nature of The Greater Good theodicy ((when used in certain ways)) so too do we find a problem if and when the polemic of so many of our Non-Theist friends pretends that it is Free Will which is the End-All/Be-All in the Imago Dei. That is in fact wrong about the Greater Good. It is not Free Will “Full-Stop” which is “Necessary” but rather it is love’s topography and unfortunately for those Non-Christian Straw-men we find that there is Free Will v. the Adamic in Heaven. AND YET it is still logically impossible for God to create the Imago Dei by creating the “Adamic” perfect (complete) in Heaven from the Get-Go.

WHY? Whence the necessity of Eden given the Decree of the Imago Dei? Whence the necessity of love’s Groom/Bride? Whence the necessity of love’s Proposal/Reply? Recall that we are dealing with The Trinitarian Life vis-à-vis that landscape of Self/Other vis-à-vis the Decree of the Imago Dei vis-à-vis all terms/definitions vis-à-vis the Christian Metaphysic. To “Cherry-Pick” is to get “The Greater Good” wrong even as it is to get “Eden” wrong even as it is to get “Privation” wrong – and so on.

Non-Christian versions of all such vectors comprise too much of the content of the polemics of our Non-Theist friends and that they employ such premises reveals that they clearly don’t recognize what is in play and cannot answer the question as to the necessity of all things ‘Edenic’.

However, the Christian Metaphysic just is the Metanarrative of that topography vis-à-vis the topography of the Immutable Trinitarian Life (God).

Those Four/4 “Misunderstandings” are further conceptualized by an excerpt from Objective And Irreducible Evil Exists Therefore Objective And Irreducible Good Exists Therefore God Exists at — https://metachristianity.com/objective-and-irreducible-evil-exists-therefore-objective-and-irreducible-good-exists-therefore-god-exists/

Begin Excerpt||Preliminary Framework

“…all theodicies fail because they provide a possible explanation for which we have no independent reason to believe is true….or the explanation is not probable on the assumption that theism is true…..” (J. Lowder)

—&—

“…since God knows what each of them would do in every possible situation, he gets to decide, so to speak, what the upshot will be – which world will be actual…” (..other..)

—&—

“Every worldly good that permits or requires evil is greatly exceeded by a pure good of the same type existing in God prior to creation…. What it forces us to notice and take seriously is that since (say) instances of courage and compassion presuppose evil or its permission, these goods cannot exist in God prior to creation. And yet God is then unsurpassably great!” (Schellenberg)

Seven Observations:

Ob-1 The part which says “…a possible explanation for which we have no independent reason to believe is true…” hinges on the explanatory power of Identity/Logical Necessity afforded by Theism over the Identity/Logical Necessity afforded by Non-Theism.

Ob-2 The part which says, “…the explanation is not probable on the assumption theism is true….” hinges on both Law of Identity and the logically necessities and logical impossibilities which arrive given this or that Theistic Metaphysic ((…the Hindu’s Pantheism vs. the Christian Metaphysic and so on…)).

Ob-3 One must account for the fact of the Law of Identity and of Logical Impossibility and of Logical Possibility all converging and forcing Possible but not Necessary Evil. Should one encounter an Irreducible state of affairs ((…forced by said convergence…)) in which the [Highest Good] in fact logically necessitates [Possible but not Necessary] Evil then one’s only possible rebuttal is to turn one’s semantic intent 180° and damn the [Highest Good] by calling it Evil “…in this World but not that World…”  Notice the self-negation which the Non-Theist must posit — for he must posit something akin to, “The highest Good is in fact the Highest Good and so my Non-Theism has Non-Illusory Moral Facts but The Highest Good is NOT The Highest Good in and through [All] [Sets] of [Possible Counterfactuals] || [Possible Worlds] and the Proof of that is that in THIS mutable and contingent world or [Set] it is the case that The Highest Good is NOT The Highest Good.”  Notice that one is left without an actual Ontic with respect to an actual Metric of The Good even as one also forces a Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Ob-4 One is in need of one’s own logical proof for one’s Moral Realism vis-à-vis one’s [Highest Good]. If we discover that one’s semantic intent when one speaks of Good and Ought and Better and so on reveals that its ontological referents regarding this or that “X” in the end land on something that is Contingent & Mutable – as opposed to Necessary & Irreducible/Immutable – then one is not speaking of an actual Ontic with respect to Realism vis-à-vis reality’s rock-bottom. One is left in the Reductio described in Ob-3 ((…see also https://metachristianity.com/platonism-and-be-ing-and-do-ing-and-pure-act-and-counterfactuals-and-moral-facts/ …)).

Ob-5 Such an outcome as per Ob-4 leaves one with a “Good” which does not and in fact cannot Even-In-Principle retain Being and Identity and Irreducibility||Immutability through [All] [Sets] of [Possible Counterfactuals] || [Possible Worlds]. Any Moral Realism which cannot or will not speak of all Worlds and all Realities but instead must only be found within Contingent Sets of Counterfactuals vis-à-vis mutable and contingent metrics such as Time and Circumstance ((and so on)) is NOT rising to the level of Moral Realism and leaves one with the Arbitrary & Mutable. Additionally one therein affirms Hume all over again as Reason finds no Factual/Ontic contradiction against REALITY ((…un-reasonable as per contradicting [All] [Sets] of [Possible Counterfactuals] || [Possible Worlds] vis-à-vis reality…)) should she ((Reason)) pursue one Goal or some other Goal vis-à-vis Preference.  It is uncanny but notice that we cannot avoid the fact that [Death] is the # 1 Killer in the World. To cure one’s spouse of cancer now only to lose them ten years from now is not “Ending Evil”. We find that Eternal Life — *and *nothing *less — is the # 1 Dissolution of our # 1 Problem. In fact BUT FOR Eternal Life there is no Ontic Resolution ((Closure)) for/of the # 1 Killer in the World.

Ob-6 One cannot posit Objective Closure vis-à-vis a logically necessary / logically compelled path to the End Of Evil until one posits the logically necessary / logically compelled Objective Evil. Similarly one cannot posit a logically necessary / logically compelled path In-To||Out-Of that which just is Objective/Irreducible Evil if one has no logically necessary / logically compelled path In-To||Out-Of that which just is Objective/Irreducible Good.

Ob-7 Should one fall short in ANY of the above  observations then one’s Map is incoherent and following said Map only leads one into the pains of Circularity.  The Objective/Irreducible End of Evil is either Illusion or else Noble Lies or else Autohypnosis without the Objective/Irreducible Good.

If and only if one has navigated and satisfied Reason’s relentless demands for logical lucidity vis-à-vis Observations 1—7 above can one then ask the pressing question which we all ask:

What is the most efficient path to the End of Evil?

On Christianity “Ending Evil” just is “Ending Privation”.  What is it that will rise to the level of [Necessary & Sufficient] with respect to the “MEANS” to achieve that “END”?  Well that depends on the nature of Evil ((…see Observations 1—7…)) and in the Christian Metaphysic that depends, then, on the nature of “Evil as Privation”.

Further, we find that we must speak of Worlds and Realities and not merely of Sets of Counterfactuals vis-à-vis mutable and contingent metrics such as Time and Circumstance. That is to say that we find that we must speak of Ending Evil vis-à-vis Ending Privation vis-à-vis the Privation of an entire Paradigm||World||Possible World. But of course for an entire Reality/World to be found IN Privation and/or to ascend OUT-OF Privation necessarily entails that The-Good be found OUTSIDE-OF||INDEPENDENT-OF any of those particular Possible Worlds or Sets of Counterfactuals. That Wider-Lens insists that we must avoid hijacked versions of the Greater Good theme which land in a surreal mixture of Utility and Occasionalism. The Greater Good umbrella does not find God allowing [ABC and/or the Possibility of ABC] “….in order to get to….”  XYZ. Instead we find [ABC and/or the Possibility of ABC] not as a Means by which God is to gain or to get to some End but, rather, because it is a logical outflow/logically necessary given His Decree of the Imago Dei vis-à-vis His Decree of The Blueprint reducing to irreducible Reciprocity vis-à-vis Self-Giving vis-à-vis the singularity of Self/Other vis-à-vis the  Trinitarian Life.  To (first) Decree “Square via World X” just is to (secondly) find “Round via World X” a logical impossibility/absurdity.

One more time for the sake of the logically necessary / logically compelled:

For an entire Reality/World to be found IN Privation and/or to ascend OUT-OF Privation necessarily entails that The-Good be found OUTSIDE-OF||INDEPENDENT-OF any of those particular Possible Worlds or Sets of Counterfactuals.

Our Non-Theist friends have no idea what such a thing looks like or even could look like. In fact they ((…perhaps willingly… perhaps in the light of logic’s Day…)) commit themselves to their own Ceiling beneath which they rummage about “Nothing-But” different “layers” and “arrangements” of frail and mutable contingencies.

If God heals my cancer today and I die in ten years from cancer is that “Ending Evil”? Is it Evil in all possible worlds/universes? Is it Evil in the Stasis/Non-Change of a 4D-Block Universe such that Evil is therein on ontological par with Good which is therein on ontological par with Indifference? If so then one finds David Bentley Hart’s “…metaphysical armistice of eternally colliding ontological equals….”

Evil is not a positive substance but is instead a deficiency of substance ((…deficiency of Being, of Good, of Life, of Mind, and so on…)) or we can say that Evil is a Hollow or Vacuum of said Substance/Ontic. That is what the Christian Metaphysic means when it speaks of The-Good and then in turn speaks of “The-Good-Minus-Something” which is to say “Evil is Good’s Privation” or “Evil is a privation of Good”.

The Christian Metaphysic posits a cure for Evil — for Privation. By force of Identity/Logic we find that the cure is nothing less than the *only* *logically* *possible* *Means* by which the aforementioned Hollow or Vacuum or Deficiency could be brought to Non-Existence. And what is that Only-Logically-Possible-Means? Well once we know what is MISSING we then know what must be POURED into said Hollow/Vacuum/Deficiency.

If we say that it is “X” which is missing in said Void/Hollow then we find that ONLY that which “Is Itself X” ((so to speak)) or we can say ONLY that which is “X Itself” ((so to speak)) can Pour-Out||Pour-Into and so thereby Fill-Up||End that Void/Hollow which is itself the Deficiency of “X” ((so to speak)).

Here Again Logical Necessity presses in through all possible worlds with respect to Evil as we find that said “X” amid said Deficiency by force of Identity/Logic *cannot* *be* anything less than Being Itself poured out — or Goodness Itself poured out — or Life Itself poured out — or All-Sufficiency Himself poured out — or God — vis-à-vis His Own Self-Outpouring — to the bitter Ends of Time & Physicality vis-a-vis all things Adamic — and that is Christ.

We can say it this way: Should one want to know what “all of the above” in fact “Looks Like” ((…from here within pains of Privation vis-à-vis our particular set of counterfactuals and logical possibilities…)) one need only turn one’s gaze towards Christ. Don’t worry about the question of “Fall or No-Fall” with respect to the necessity of “…nothing less than X Itself.…” as the Imago Dei vis-à-vis the Adamic finds the SAME Logically Necessary Means/Ends inside of “The Edenic” as the Imago Dei vis-à-vis the Adamic finds within “Privation” and in fact the Imago Dei vis-à-vis the Adamic finds the SAME Logically Necessary Means/Ends in [All] [Sets] of [Possible Counterfactuals] || [Possible Worlds] and in fact it is necessarily the case that it cannot be otherwise.

But of course all of that is the Groom’s Proposal amid His Beloved’s Reply. The beautiful Freedom called Permanence can only come later ((…again by force of Identity/Logical Necessity)) vis-à-vis the ontics of “Weddings” and “Births” — all of which is found in another Chapter up ahead — by force of Identity/Logical Necessity.

Closure — we cannot avoid the fact that [Death] is the # 1 Killer in the World. To cure one’s spouse of cancer now only to lose her ten years from now is not “Ending Evil”.  We find that Eternal Life — *and *nothing *less — is the # 1 Dissolution of our # 1 Problem. In fact BUT FOR Eternal Life there is no Ontic Resolution ((Closure)) for/of the # 1 Killer in the World.

“No Good Reason For Possible Word X / Possible Worlds”?

The problem with the Non-Theist’s “No Good Reason For Possible Word X / Possible Worlds” is not difficult to see assuming one interacts with the Trinitarian Metaphysic and not some other, Non-Christian, Metaphysic. Basically that looks like the following:

Evil is a Deficiency of Being vis-à-vis Being Itself vis-à-vis Goodness Itself as per “Privation”. Evil is not a Positive Substance but is instead “The Good Minus Something”. That is one of the many reasons why the Non-Theist’s “Degrees Of X” somehow existing in a Reality which is necessarily void of X just won’t do. Non-Theism’s Necessary Conservation of [Irreducible Indifference] from A to Z affords it no concept of what Good/Deficiency might even “look like” — and therein no Metric or Tool to employ and by which to “Map”. The term “Suffering” has no Ontic Referent which can even in principle sum to “Evil” on Non-Theism.

Therefore our Non-Theist friends are forever self-negating here in between their own ontological “A” and “Z”. It is that simple. Again: it is that simple as Objectivism of ANY Good/Evil necessarily entails The-Good Full-Stop as one cannot find a coherent definition of “Evil” but for The-Good vis-à-vis Being vis-à-vis Closure. “Degrees of X” is gibberish in Non-Theism simply because we must finally end either with Being or with Non-Being — not with Degrees-Of-Philosophical-No-Thing ((…a Reductio…)).

The category of Moral Objectivism includes the category of Objective Evil and we rationally count Moral Objectivism — and hence Evil too — as one of the many positive ((Perceptible)) evidences of God ((The-Good as Being Itself)). That is also one of the reasons why we rationally & morally reject Non-Theism’s terminus of Indifference.

“No Good Reason For Possible Word X / Possible Worlds” Notice here that far worse than the Non-Theist’s self-negation and inexplicable belief in “Degrees Of X” somehow existing in a Reality which is necessarily void of X is the fact that the sum of Groom/Bride vis-à-vis Self/Other makes a metaphysical necessity out of the Edenic IF God Decrees the Imago Dei. The reason why is because the Blueprint for that just is Irreducible Reciprocity viz. the Trinitarian Life and the Map of any such Self/Other or I/You or Groom/Bride which houses the Contingent/Created must and does – from A to Z – subsume all Ontological Possibilities “therein” and therefore all Possible Worlds “therein” are necessarily found as Permissible/Possible yet not Necessary. There the full-on semantic intent of “Possible But Not Necessary” vis-à-vis the Contingent/Created arrives on scene and all of that Heavy-Weight Ontic Real Estate is ((so far)) found merely at the initial/start of the Christian Metaphysic vis-à-vis “Let Us Create” as per the Blueprint of the Trinitarian Life – never mind all that “Necessarily Can” ((then)) follow/actualize.

End Excerpt||Preliminary Framework

….So Let’s Further Unpack All Of That…..

To Create vs. To Not-Create

There’s more further down but first a brief reminder of the question:

A — By which metrics will we Ask/Answer that question? By Love’s metrics? Well yes. Of course. But then how does one rationally damn love’s begetting of love either within The Trinitarian Life (…God Not-Creating….) or within the Divine Decree of the Imago Dei (…God Creating…)?

B — Is it Good and Logical and Valuing-Of-Love on our part if we fault God for begetting love vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life wherein we discover Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving with respect to Being in totum? How is it that one can rationally claim (there) that “God Is Un-Loving?

C — Is it Good and Logical and Valuing-Of-Love on our part if we fault God for begetting love in the Creative Act vis-à-vis the Decree of the Imago Dei?

Again those questions are as per a. http://disq.us/p/1xv6v4f and b. http://disq.us/p/1slxh6k and c. http://disq.us/p/1xr6yav

To Create vs. To Not-Create? Any proposal of love that isn’t free amid “Self/Other” just isn’t a trinitarian love. The isolated Self or what we call Privation cannot not-exist, just as community in the Whole of Self/Other which we call love’s unicity cannot not-exist.

When love is proposed to all things Adamic, to the beloved, we come upon the logical necessity of all things Edenic – the logical necessity that the Edenic never was the Adamic’s Eternal Home combined with the logical necessity that there are only Two Options for all things Adamic within all things Edenic – those Two Doors within Eden facing Outward – one Door/Tree into Privation ((…that of the Isolated Self…)) and one Door/Tree into the Whole of Self/Other ((…Community/God-In-Man/Man-In-God/Eternal Life…)) – and all of that combined with the logical necessity that there is no “possible third option”.  Why no third “Possible World” ((so to speak))? Because any contingent being necessarily lacks wholeness “in and of itself“, so to speak. That Pure-I, or that Isolated Self, or that lack of Community amid Self/Other – or that lack of unicity vis-à-vis [Contingent-Being||Necessary-Being] or [Man||God] just is the Outside. Privation as necessary in the Trinitarian Life? In the Blueprint?

Well of course. As in the following.

In the Necessary Being the freedom of Privation, of “I AM”, not only cannot not-exist but also just is [God] – just is The Great I AM – just is The-Good – given the Christian’s uniquely Trinitarian Metaphysic ((…perhaps https://metachristianity.com/define-god/ …)). Notice that no other metaphysic solves this. None. Notice that it is logically impossible for any Contingent Being to find that same Result/Yield should that Choice of “I/Self” be made. In any contingent being the Yield/Fruit of that specific Shout or Move or Motion ((…that of “I/Self”…)) just is “Privation” as it relates to Need and Lack and Necessary-Insufficiency. Whereas that same Progression within the Trinitarian Life necessarily and irreducibly lands within that which just is [God] – just is The Great I AM – just is The-Good.

From there we can say that to demand Universalism as desirable is not irrational as God Himself desires that all be saved and in fact it is logically impossible for God to “Desire” a “logical impossibility” and we therein know that Universalism is ((at the very least)) necessarily possible. However, to coerce/force it is to create a world with an Ethic that is not an Ethic of Love. Why? Simply because of love’s necessary landscape. Why? Simply because Ultimate Reality, or God, as in the Trinitarian Life, just “is” love – just “is” Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Being in totum. To preach love one must preach the Metaphysical Singularity that is “Love and Necessity“.

A bit of the esoteric:

This is more readily available than we think. As in: In marriage is it “I”? Well yes. Is it “her”? Well yes. Is there yet a third, a singularity? Well yes, in the uncanny unicity with the beloved in nothing less than Us vis-à-vis Self/Other ((…theologians don’t panic…it’s not positing Modalism/Sabellianism, …)).

We have to be careful about our definitions because all of “that” of course is the metaphysical landscape of love’s Proposal. That of Groom//Bride-To-Be. That of all things Edenic. The metaphysical content and yield of that Landscape is necessarily going to be irreducibly different than the metaphysical content and yield of a Wedding. And in turn that Landscape of Wedding is necessarily going to be irreducibly different than the metaphysical content and yield of the landscape of a Birth. That Trio of Landscapes reveals that Conflating and/or Equating any one landscape in said trio for any other landscape in said trio is NOT going to give us the definitions specific to the uniquely Christian metaphysic.

Briefly – The Notion Of Privation Within The Trinitarian Life

Because of the peculiarity of the Imago Dei, the transcendentals there are unavoidable, or cannot be otherwise. So, then, if “that” is our “source” then the question of freely choosing between “YOU/THY” (on the one hand) and “ME/MY” (on the other hand) is the core question. We come here upon Divine Freedom vis-à-vis Processions vis-à-vis Pure Act.

In the Trinitarian Life of course we find both “Processions”, as it were, and the various ways that can be described are numerous. Also, the shout of *I*/I AM finds (in a sense) the affairs of “Privation” but, of course, that lands in/on nothing less than Being in totum, which is God. The Necessary Being *cannot* be *divided* into *parts* such as [Being Minus Something] and hence (in a sense) no “Evil” (Privation proper) can be found in Him. Yet, given Trinity, that fact *cannot* erase the fact of those Processions which we find ((…in that other senses described so far…)) the affairs of “Privation”.

In Absolute Consciousness we come upon the map of “Being Itself” which begins to take shape amid the trio of the Infinite Knower and the Infinitely Known and all Processions therein vis-à-vis Logos – but of course that is just the start. As we progress amid the logically compelled Divine Freedom plus the logically compelled Divine Simplicity we come upon the uncanny real estate of something akin to the following:

[A] is not [B]
[B] is not [C]
[C] is not [A]

And: Each is Being in totum – each is *GOD*.

“Choice” within the Trinitarian Life (…to create.. to not create…and so on…) is therein irreducible within Pure Act as the “metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility” ((…see further down the section titled “Divine Freedom In Creating & “Does God Change If He Creates?“…)). The nature of that milieu is both the source of and the hard stop of our definitions here. With God there’s this:

A— God can freely choose to create
B— God can freely choose to not create

Both A and B are in fact Fully Good. In fact but for the embrace of the triune landscape of the Christian God there is no such freedom found *anywhere* in *any* paradigm. It’s a bit uncanny. Descending in the Downhill Ontic – down into the contingent being with the peculiarities of “Imago Dei”, or the Adamic, the necessary transcendentals follow suit in that consciousness is coterminous with reason which is coterminous with love which is coterminous with being. We find, there, those irreducibly volitional and intentional processions amid self/other — or can do otherwise — or choice.

Why Not Heaven / Perfection Of Being From The Get-Go?

In short: It is logically impossible for Omnipotence to Create the Already-Freely-Married-Beloved. A handful of key assumptions are missed in the question here and the syntax of A. Groom and B. (Potential) Bride and C. (His) Proposal and D. (Her) Can-Do-Otherwise-Reply and E. (Their) Wedding and F. (Ontic) Births and G. (Metaphysical) Lucidity all press in upon us here such that we find the following:

“IF” God should Decree and fashion the Imago Dei, “THEN” there can be no such reality as the creation of the “freely-already-married” and, therein, we begin to discover that His love’s Proposals are not the same (in content/yield) as her Replies and Replies are not the same (in content/yield) as Weddings, and, for all the same reasons, Weddings are not the same (in content/yield) as Gestations, and, also, Gestations are not the same (in content/yield) as Birth which themselves are not the same (in content/yield) as New Worlds as such relates to the Door into God’s Ideal, a Door which faces outward from both within Eden and from within Privation.

In fact we are carried into nothing less than both Groom/Bride – and – Proposal/Reply as the Simplicity of I-Thee-Wed presses in. For us to demand unending wholeness & no suffering is rational as both are Good and both sum to The Whole but *IF* we mean to say that God can Create such from the get-go by creating round squares akin to “The Already Freely Married” such that A. All-Things-Adamic are found bypassing B. All-Things-Edenic well *THEN* we are offering and/or asking for a mere absurdity, a round-square given the necessary contours of love amid self/other. Recall the Blueprint. Recall the necessary distinctions amid Proposal / Reply / Wedding and the necessary metaphysical differences amid those three both in content and in yield. Recall again:

[Death] is the #1 Killer in the World. Therefore [Eternal Life] and nothing less is the #1 dissolution of our #1 problem. In fact, BUT FOR [Eternal Life] there is no Ontic Resolution of the #1 killer in the World.

Again recall that to demand unending wholeness? No suffering? Well again yes but then the Metric is nothing less than Eternal Life and, therefore, our hand is forced and Non-Theism becomes its own contradiction even as the Christian Metaphysic retains lucidity.

The Basic Framework of the Christian Metanarrative:

1. The ontological syntax of [Incarnation] inside & outside of “The Edenic“.
2. Man is found lifeless outside of Eden. Made of the ground.
3. The Breath of God births Life, the Imago Dei. Still outside of Eden.
4. It is only then that the Adamic and the Edenic converge.
5. Eden cannot remain, is not God’s Ideal, and has two *outward* facing Doors/Trees, each necessitating a radical “ontic-change”.
6. The Edenic wasn’t Man’s Final Felicity — By Design.
7. Everything from Genesis until “Now” is in a Downhill Ontic relative to the Edenic & sums to Privation.
8. Sinai also wasn’t Man’s True Felicity — Man’s Final Good.
9. The Two Roads leading “The Adamic” to the outside of “The Edenic” both necessarily traverse a. the Groom’s Proposal & b. The Beloved’s Can-Do-Otherwise Reply
10. Both of those Trees / Doors / Roads converge in that *same* Interface amid Self/Other & thereby in both a. “My And Not Thy” and b. “Thy And Not My” ((with respect to God & Man))
11. The Trinitarian Life is the Blueprint of said Interface
12. Only in the Trinitarian Life do *both* a. “My And Not Thy” *and* b. “Thy And Not My” necessarily Land in The Great I AM — in [The-Good].
13. For *any* Contingent Being to sum to the Imago Dei — to the Image of the Blueprint — said being must *Traverse* that *same* Can-Do-Otherwise-Procession vis-a-vis Self/Other which we find in the Trinitarian Life ((…Divine Freedom…)). Scripture brackets that “Traversal” in the syntax of [The Groom/The Beloved & The Proposal/Reply].
14. Once there is a Marriage the Metaphysical Content/Yield necessarily and radically changes ((again — such is *necessarily* the case given the union/embrace of “Marriage”))
15. The Free Reply of the Beloved into “Marriage” does *not* yield isolation or [The Self in Privation] ((…which is necessarily void of the Immutable Whole, of Community, of Self/Other, of God-In-Man//Man-In-God…))
16. Instead what “arrives” in and of and by and through the “Marriage” is [Self/Other] — or Wholeness —or Community — as the Ontic of Marriage yields the Ontic of “Birth” which yields an Ontic of Immutability — and that Beautiful Freedom called Permanence vis-à-vis The End Of Days ((and so on)).
17. Neither the Proposal nor the Wedding are “Complete” here/now within the pains of “Privation” ((…Evil as Privation…)).
18. The necessary Means/Ends with respect to the perfection of our own being cannot sum to Sinai & Law & More Law & still More Law — ad infinitum.
19. The necessary Means/Ends with respect to the perfection of our own being is the *same* regardless of which Road out of the Edenic is/was chosen by the Adamic ((…Marriage vs. Privation…)).
20. Either Tree / Road Out of The Edenic *traverses* the necessary Means/Ends with respect to the perfection of our own being – and that is by logical necessity nothing less than God Himself — Poured Out.
21. By logical necessity nothing less than All-Sufficiency Himself Poured Out *can* suffice — And such necessarily yields something referenced as “The-Cup”.
22. Marriage necessarily houses “The-Cup” Freely Chosen/Drank by the Adamic.
23. It is not possible for God to Bypass This-Cup because God Freely Chose this Cup when God Freely Chose “Himself/The-Good” as the Blueprint and so therein Freely Chose to specifically Decree the Imago Dei. It is there that Gethsemane Reveals God’s Free Choice as Decree within the Trinitarian Life Actualizes within Time & Physicality.
24. But the Adamic *can* Freely Bypass The-Cup ((…see Groom/Bride and Proposal/Reply earlier…)).
25. Incarnation With & Without The Fall Is Logically Necessary Given The Decree Of Imago Dei.
26. That Necessity brings us to Supralapsarian Christology.
27. We Spy Closure Only In & Through the Metanarrative/Metaphysic of God Himself Poured Out vis-a-vis God and His Beloved
28. We discover that it is You & I & Us who are His Beloved — as we discover Community in and of Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Being Itself — First in the Blueprint — the Trinitarian Life — and Ultimately/Finally in all things Adamic
29. 20/20 Vision is through Two “Eyes” and those Two Eyes ((so to speak)) sum to “Reason & Reciprocity” — or if it helps we can instead say “Logic & Love”
30. See #32 after the following quote.
31. The following quote is from the book, “Incarnation Anyway: Arguments for Supralapsarian Christology” by E. Van Driel

Quote:

“…..This book raises in a new way a central question of Christology: what is the divine motive for the incarnation? Throughout Christian history a majority of Western theologians have agreed that God’s decision to become incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ was made necessary by “the Fall” — if humans had not sinned, the incarnation would not have happened. This position is known as **infralapsarian**. A minority of theologians however, including some major 19th- and 20th-century theological figures, championed a **supralapsarian** Christology, arguing that God has always intended the incarnation, independent of “the Fall.” Edwin Chr. van Driel offers the first scholarly monograph to map and analyze the full range of supralapsarian arguments. He gives a thick description of each argument and its theological consequences, and evaluates the theological gains and losses inherent in each approach. Van Driel shows that each of the three ways in which God is thought to relate to all that is not God — in creation, in redemption, and in eschatological consummation — can serve as the basis for a supralapsarian argument. He illustrates this thesis with detailed case studies of the Christologies of Schleiermacher, Dorner, and Barth. He concludes that the most fruitful supralapsarian strategy is rooted in the notion of eschatological consummation, taking interpersonal interaction with God to be the goal of the incarnation. He goes on to develop his own argument along these lines, concluding in an eschatological vision in which God is visually, audibly, and tangibly present in the midst of God’s people.”

End quote.

“God will use what He chooses not to remove.“ Andy Stanley

(“#32”) WHY THE CROSS? WHY NOT JUST FORGIVE?

How shall “You’re Forgiven” “cure” or “extinguish” that which is “Evil as Privation”? In fact we discover that in all Sub-Narratives the Meta-Narrative subsumes all definitions as Mt Sinai Necessarily Gives Way To Mt Zion:

#1 Sinai is defined in Scripture as The Ministry of Death

#2 Sinai is defined in Scripture as lacking the means to cure Evil and therein the pains of our Privation

#3 Evil is not a positive substance but is instead a deficiency of substance ((Being, Good, Etc.)) — Evil is therein a Hollow or Vacuum of said substance — and that is Evil as Good’s Privation — as “The Good Minus Something“

#4 The Christian Metaphysic posits a cure for Evil — for Privation

#5 That cure is nothing less than the only logically possible Means by which the aforementioned vacuum or deficiency or hollow described in # 3 above could be brought to Non-Existence.

#6 Only that which “Is Itself” that which is “X” ((so to speak)) can Pour & thereby Fill that Hollow which is itself but the void of “X” — again as described in # 3 above

#7 Such cannot be anything less than Being Itself poured out — or Goodness Itself poured out — or All-Sufficiency Himself poured out — or God — via His Own Self-Outpouring — to the bitter Ends of Time & Physicality vis-à-vis all things Adamic — and this is Christ.

Clarification: No Sin In “Heaven”

The question of “The Groom’s Proposal” in the “Edenic” is not a metaphysical terminus. It is rather a Beginning. Proposal births Marriage and Marriage births Unicity and Unicity births New Life / Offspring / Eternal Life / Permanence as we approach the topic of the perfection of being, and so on. We find that “Eden” is not “Heaven” neither in Means nor in Ends.

The Means and Ends of the following are, by logical necessity, identical:

“Exiting Eden & Entering Eternal Life”

“Exiting Privation & Entering Eternal Life”

Ravi Zacharias notes that Omnipotence has four options with respect to logically possible worlds:

1. Create No World
2. Create the A-Moral World
3. Create the World where we only choose Good
4. Create the World of Freedom ((Groom/Bride Marriage/Other))

Ravi Zacharias notes that only World 4 is love-permitting. He affirms Adam’s metaphysical wherewithal to Know/See/Freely-Choose from the get-go. That capacity is both informed and is actual and so then there is the real metaphysical possibility of [no sin/no-fall]. Hence sin can go un-actualized. Question: So who causes sin if the Adamic doesn’t sin? Answer: no one and nothing. That topography is again described in the following from “Who Made God?” by Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler:

Begin Excerpts:

Scripture indicates that the turn downward came the moment Adam and Eve used their God-given free will to choose to disobey God (see Genesis 3). Some people wonder why God couldn’t have created humans in such a way that we would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether. The fact is, such a scenario would mean that we were not truly human. We would not have the capacity to make choices and to freely love. This scenario would require that God create robots who would act only in programmed ways — like a chatty doll whose string you pull and it says, “I love you.” …..Love cannot be programmed; it must be freely expressed. God wanted ((Willed/Decreed)) Adam and all humanity to show love by freely choosing obedience. This is why God gave Adam and all other humans a free will. Geisler is correct in saying that “forced love is rape; and God is not a divine rapist. He will not do anything to coerce their decision.” A free choice, however, leaves the possibility of a wrong choice. As J. B. Phillips put it, “Evil is inherent in the risky gift of free will.” In view of the scriptural facts, we may conclude that God’s plan had the POTENTIAL for evil when he bestowed on humans the freedom of choice, but the actual ORIGIN of evil came as a result of a man who directed his will away from God and toward his own selfish desires. Norman Geisler and Jeff Amanu note, “Whereas God created the FACT of freedom, humans perform the ACTS of freedom. God made evil possible — creatures make it actual….”

End Excerpts.

Christians affirm Adam’s metaphysical wherewithal to Know/See/Freely-Choose and to exit the Edenic and enter Eternal Life — from the get-go. The [If-No-Fall] arrives in God’s Ordered Will of God’s Incarnation & Self-Outpouring in All Possible Worlds viz. the Imago Dei — Fall or No-Fall.  Again: The “Necessary & Sufficient” vis-à-vis “Means & Ends” vis-a-vis the Adamic’s “Fullness of Being” or “Eternal Life” CANNOT change (by Logical Necessity) between “Exiting Eden & Entering Eternal Life” and “Exiting Privation & Entering Eternal Life”.

God CAN Decree & Create the Narrative we see in the Adamic and therefore God’s “You May Freely Eat” is metaphysically coherent. However, *IF* the Adamic is of such a nature that God DID NOT create that Freely-Eat state of affairs *THEN* what do we do with God’s “You May Freely Eat”? The only option is a category of Ontic Noble Lies told by the Necessary Being.

Choosing Self: The Christian Metaphysic does not define “Self” as “Evil”. The Groom’s Proposal finds the Beloved’s ((The Adamic’s)) Reply landing in and at and within nothing less and nothing more than SELF/OTHER. Mackie’s challenge does what so many fallacies do which is to Forget/Expunge the actual Decree in play, namely that of the Imago Dei wherein the “Blueprint” of the Adamic is Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-a-vis Self/Other vis-a-vis the Trinitarian Life. THAT is the Decree/Landscape and THAT is WHY all things “Edenic” are in fact logically necessary ((…to bypass Eden and create the  Already-Freely-Married-Bride is akin to creating Round-Squares….)).

Choosing Self is choosing a Good. Loving Self is loving a Good. The Groom/Bride is Self/Other Full-Stop. Rock-Bottom. There are no other counterfactuals or fundamental forces. It is Self and it is Other. God & Man. It is not Evil to love Self. The only “issue” with “Self” is if one Starts/Stops “there” then one starts/stops in Contingency/Need and that is necessarily the case in all possible worlds for all contingent beings.

The Edenic’s Free Proposal/Reply does move forward into the immutability of Permanence. Why? The metaphysical content & yield of Proposal & Reply *Necessarily* precedes the metaphysical content & yield of Wedding & Birth. To create “The Already Freely Married Bride” is to create the Round-Square. The [If-No-Fall] arrives in God’s Ordered Will of God’s Incarnation and Self-Outpouring in All Possible Worlds vis-a-vis the Imago Dei — Fall or No-Fall.

While I disagree with the following,  it does draw attention to the fact that “Creating The Already-Freely-Married” is a logical impossibility. While most define that from the standpoint of Logical Prior / Logically After vis-à-vis Identity and Non-Contradiction, the following looks at that impossibility through a different lens:

Abstract

“This article argues that, without being reducible to a version of the Free Will Defense Aquinas´ theodicy and philosophical theology can offer contemporary versions of the Free Will Defense stronger metaphysical and theological foundations from which a response to Mackie´s compatibilistic challenge – probably the most serious challenge against this defense – can be derived. Mackie´s challenge to the Free Will Defense is the argument that the possibility of evil is not a necessary condition for the existence of free will, for God – if He existed and was omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient – could have and would have created rational and free agents such that they would always freely choose the good. I claim, following Aquinas´ hylomorphic ontology, that the creation of such a will is logically impossible as it would require the creation of a will containing naturally and invariably the formality of the universal and perfect good, and so the creation of a will indistinct from God´s, which is by nature uncreated.” ((….from Aquinas on Evil and the Will: A response to Mackie – by Facundo Rodríguez https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nbfr.12579 …))

Eden? Fall? Freedom? Counterfactuals Within The Edenic:

A quote which captures the error:  “….since God knows what each of them would do in every possible situation, he gets to decide, so to speak, what the upshot will be – which world will be actual….”

We’ll get to those errors a few paragraphs down but first the fallacious Frame/Syllogism off of which that error springboards:

A— If P were in S1, P would do A.
B— If P were in S2, P would not do A.
1— If Adam were in S1, he would obey God.
2— If Adam were in S2, he would not obey God

That formula is ALMOST correct. But not quite:

P = Adam and we can add that G = God and S1/S2/Etc. are various other variables and counterfactuals. The key is that the Rock-Bottom of what the Adamic “Does” or “Chooses” within the Edenic reduces to the Interface of the Adamic with God – or we can say that the entire affair is that of P/G and NOT that of any litany of S1, S2, S3 and so on vis-à-vis other heavier ontics or more weighty ontics which define the Seat of the Soul vis-à-vis Self/Other. The proverbial “Buck Stops Here” as it were. The Seat is the Self and that means exactly that – the “i” vis-à-vis “i-am” vis-à-vis “i-reason” vis-à-vis the Intentional Self and the “How/Why” that can be ontologically Concrete is found in what Non-Theism never can provide – and that is what is found in and through the Ground of Being as such and the Principle of Proportionate Causality ((….not the PSR which is different…)).

In short the above formula is almost right but it assumes there is something at the bottom of the whole show which wins-out or decides or moves OTHER THAN the Seat that is “Self/I-AM” vis-à-vis the Adamic. But that assumption is based purely in Materialism or Physicalism or some other paradigm and NOT in that the paradigm of the Trinitarian Life || Imago Dei. “P/G” therefore in fact over-powers and out-reaches and “out-ontics” the ten thousand variations of the fallacy of P|S1+S2+S3+S4|G

Whether Man is Fully Dualistic such that “I”/“Me”/“Self” ((and so on)) CANNOT be Alive With God//Absent From The Body or whether Man or “I”/“Me”/“Self” CAN in fact be Alive With God//Absent From The Body makes no difference to the Core Fallacy within P|S1+S2+S3+S4|G and the reason why is because there is NO POSSIBLE MAP in the form of [Material Full Stop] or [Covalent Bonds Full Stop] which can “in fact” or “in principle someday” Map the Whole of The Adamic ((….the defense of the map of the philosophy of mind and refuting eliminative maps and fallacious “non-reductive” equivocations and so on is not / are not the topic here….)).

Keeping “P/G” in mind, and keeping the Principle of Proportionate Causality in mind, and keeping in mind the topic of Where/How all such Ontics in fact overpower and out-reach the fallacy of P|S1+S2+S3+S4|G – there is ((if interested)) more on how that “cashes out” so to speak over within the following somewhat tedious/lengthy items:

A— The Adamic, The Edenic, Free Will, God’s Will, God’s Decree, Incarnation, and Possible Worlds – Part 1 – at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/free_will_makes_sense_in_the_christian_story/#comment-3538979858

B— The Adamic, The Edenic, Free Will, God’s Will, God’s Decree, Incarnation, and Possible Worlds – Part 2 – at http://disq.us/p/1zvghk8

C— With Or Without The Fall vis-à-vis All Possible Worlds – at http://disq.us/p/1zxdloe

Counterfactuals Within The Edenic & The Irreducible Face-To-Face

God’s Decree of, Creation of, the “Y” that is the entire Adamic Landscape (…the trio of Eden, Privation, & God’s Eternal Ideal…) is not a Decree of, Creation of, three separate created realities but is *one* created landscape the blueprint for which is the Trinitarian Life amid love’s Self/Other vis-à-vis the Divine Decree of the Imago Dei. It is the case that The Adamic cannot find Eternal Life, God’s Eternal Ideal, other than by traversing that landscape of God’s / His love’s Proposal amid the Adamic’s Reply amid the syntax of a Wedding. More specifically, we arrive at the Decreed Imago Dei within 1. a proposal, 2. a reply, 3. a wedding, and the necessary *distinctions* between those three. They are all constitutions of *one* landscape and yet they are irreducibly distinct. The causal ecosystem in 2 is not, either in content or in yield, that of 3, and, everything in 2 is *necessary* (…or cannot be otherwise, by Decree…), and, nothing in 2 is *sufficient* (..by force of logical impossibility…).

We come to that Face-To-Face amid God/Man and the blueprint for the Adamic just is the irreducible contours of the Trinitarian Life and, given said Decree, we find that in the earlier formula ((…soaked through with P|S1+S2+S3+S4|G …)) we come upon the following errors/disqualifiers:

[1] The absence of the stand-alone interface amid God/Man (… the proverbial P/G…) within the narrative of Self/Other

[2] An endless litany of unwarranted additions to that same “God/Man” interface of counterfactual S1, S2, S3, Etc.

[3] There is no case in which Adam’s “S1” becomes and is “God” and/or where “S2” becomes and is “The Adamic” ((so to speak)) and so we always/only find Adam-AND-S1-Etc. and we never find that Face-To-Face that *is* P/G

[4] The unwarranted premise that those additions ((…S1, S2, Etc…)) are ontologically heavier than and so “out-ontic” the irreducible I/Self amid that same Decreed Self/Other as per the Decree of the Imago Dei

Yield/Result: All of that forces one to expunge half of Scripture’s metanarrative. That is to say that the following is valid IF and only IF one expunges the Trinitarian Life and thereby invents some sort of Non-Christian Paradigm. Here it is again:

A— If P were in S1, P would do A.
B— If P were in S2, P would not do A.
1— If Adam were in S1, he would obey God.
2— If Adam were in S2, he would not obey God

Again notice the Non-Existent P/G and the overriding fallacious ontic of P|S1+S2+S3+S4|G. Also notice the Immaterial/Immaterial vis-à-vis the Face-To-Face vis-à-vis the P/G. The Physicalist’s reduction does not apply here and in fact cannot apply here. Our terms and referents need to be precise.

Man inside of that blueprint is necessarily and unavoidably amid “Self/Other” vis-à-vis God/Man and, therefore, we find Man in Eden – or – we find the Adamic in Eden moving and motioning and thereby choosing from *that* terminus, and *that* equates to God presenting “the Adamic” with neither S1 nor S2 nor S3 nor….. and so on, but, rather, with “G”, with Himself, with *GOD*.

Then, from there:

When the Adamic motions *there*, in *that* interface, it is *not* amid S1/Adam, nor S2/Adam, nor S3/Adam, but, rather, between Self/Other vis-à-vis [The Adamic] / [GOD] vis-à-vis which world will actualize and recall that *this* is by Decree and the reason the Decree takes *this* form and makes *this* landscape is *not* because God could not make some other type of world, but, rather, because God’s Decree of, Creation of, the “Y” that is the entire Adamic Landscape (…the trio of Eden, Privation, & God’s Eternal Ideal…) is not a Decree of, Creation of, three separate created realities but is *one* created landscape the Blueprint for which is the Trinitarian Life amid love’s Self/Other vis-à-vis the Divine Decree of the Imago Dei.

In and by *that* Decree by *that* God – the uniquely Trinitarian God of the uniquely Christian metaphysic – we discover Man motioning [into/out of] that which is [God / Person] and the *error* is to think that God places Man before something besides Himself such that:

A— If P were in S1, P would do A.
B— If P were in S2, P would not do A.
1— If Adam were in S1, he would obey God.
2— If Adam were in S2, he would not obey God

A quote which captures the error: “Since God knows what each of them would do in every possible situation, he gets to decide, so to speak, what the upshot will be – which world will be actual.”

There is another key in that error:

It is okay to say that God foresees S1 along with S1’s outcome, and, it is okay to say God foresees S2 along with S2’s outcome.

So far so good.

However, *that* is *not* what makes the Sum of the Adamic for, what God presents to the Adamic, and we mean by Decrere, in that peculiar World termed all things Edenic is God Himself. In that sense then we find that, per the formula above as it’s written there, S1 and S2 are not possible and the reason why…

….and the reason why…

….is that, by Decree, whatever we want to make of Eden’s status (…physical vs immaterial vs. some sort of pre-fall paradigm – or whatever…) it is the case that God presents the Immaterial / Adamic – not with a wad of neurons-full-stop – but with something both Uncreated and Immaterial – namely Himself (…for one thing…) which we can call here in this proper formula “G” to replace any “S”, and, then, (…for another thing…), we also find the [1] “outcome/option” of the isolated Self vis-à-vis Privation – and/or – [2] the “outcome/option” of the eternal life or community or unicity of Self/Other vis-à-vis God’s Eternal Ideal for all things Adamic.

That metaphysical landscape constitutes the “what” which God has Created and it constitutes the “what” which is “in-play” there within the “Y” that is *one* Created Landscape. Notice the Immaterial/Immaterial vis-à-vis the Face-To-Face vis-à-vis the P/G.

What we discover happening in Eden and what we discover happening in Privation – given that “G” – is All-Sufficiency’s Own Self-Outpouring – Christ – in all available worlds and that interface amid “Necessity/Contingency” – or if it helps amid “All-Sufficiency / Total Insufficiency” – or if it helps amid “Creator/Created” – or if it helps amid “God/Man” – is that which sums to Love’s Proposal and what is in-play is, as with all weddings, the landscape of the Privatized Self (…on the one hand…) and the landscape of community, of that singular “Us” (…on the other hand…), the latter there of course being “Heaven” or “Eternal Life”, or “God’s Eternal Ideal for all things Adamic” or, in the First and Last Adam, this: Man in God, God in Man.

See With Or Without The Fall vis-à-vis All Possible Worlds – at http://disq.us/p/1zxdloe — Also, overlapping content is found while unpacking some of the key missteps in J.L. Schellenberg’s “A New Logical Problem of Evil” …that is unpacked in “Objective And Irreducible Evil Exists Therefore Objective and Irreducible Good Exists Therefore God Exists” which is at https://metachristianity.com/objective-and-irreducible-evil-exists-therefore-objective-and-irreducible-good-exists-therefore-god-exists/

Permanence & Freedom & Yet No Sin In Eternal Life

Notice that the Blueprint logically necessitated all things Edenic and that the Edenic logically necessitated not permanence ((…in the Edenic or in the Proposal…)) but rather Two Options and only Two Options ((….amid Self/Other…)).  Notice also that we find three irreducibly distinct Metaphysical Landscapes with respect to Content and Yield regarding all things Adamic – namely all things Proposal ((…all things Edenic…)) and all things Wedding ((…from within Eden or from within Privation makes no difference…)) and all things Birth.

That which is necessarily “Insufficiency Itself” (…in our case all things Adamic…) free falls into “All Sufficiency Itself” (…as in Being Itself / God…) such that wherever Insufficiency shall turn its eyes, whether above its head, or beneath its feet, or into its own chest, in all vectors it shall find not its own insufficiency but instead the All Sufficiency of He Who fills Within Himself by His Own Self-Outpouring as the Triune God and He Who Fills All In all by necessity of Being and He Who therein through Proposal and through Life-Or-Death and through Wedding and through Birth glorifies The Frail & Created Other — His Beloved — all things Adamic —by the peculiar Debasement of Himself and thereby gifts to His Bride that beautiful freedom called Permanence.

It is those necessary distinctions amid those necessary Contents and those necessary Yields which begin to unravel the Mystery as to How/Why all things Adamic arrive at that Beautiful Freedom called Permanence ((…all things Eternal Life….)). Recall the Blueprint – that of the Trinitarian Life. It is THOSE Progressions/Contours which in fact constitute the entirety of the Christian Metaphysic. To say that God CAN/OUGHT Create the Already-Freely-Married-Beloved is to insist that God Bypass the Irreducible Progressions of the Trinitarian Life AND YET STILL bring about the irreducible Content and irreducible Yield of Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis ((Divine)) Freedom amid Self/Other is to say that God CAN/OUGHT Create Round-Squares.

The Blueprint which God uses to fashion the Imago Dei is just that – the Imago Dei – and that makes it logically impossible to fashion Man in anything akin to the “Already-Freely-Married-State“ from the Get-Go. There are reasons why the terms and syntax of Groom and Bride and Her-Reply and Wedding are found in Scripture’s Metanarrative just as there are reasons why the syntax of Birth populates the Christian Metanarrative even as there are reasons why we find the syntax of Agency and Reciprocity as all things Edenic therein become necessary with respect to all things Adamic given the necessary premises/conditions which arrive in and by the uniquely Trinitarian Paradigm. The Critic can do as he wishes but he must take the Christian’s premises on their own terms in order to meaningfully interact with it Pro or Con ((….but that’s another story…)).

As we move out of the ((unique and seamless and necessary)) metaphysical Content & Yield of the Landscape of the Groom’s Proposal and begin to move into and unpack the ((unique and seamless and necessary)) Content & Yield within the Landscapes of Wedding and then from there as we begin to move into the ((unique and seamless and necessary)) Content & Yield of the metaphysical Landscape of Birth we begin to come upon thy syntax of Eternal Life and of Afterlife or we can say we come upon the syntax of Man’s Final Good or of Man’s True Felicity – that Beautiful Freedom called Permanence.

The brackets of ontological possibilities in the Possible Worlds under review ((…Imgao Dei…)) are logically constrained by the Blueprint of the Trinitarian Life. Given, that is, the Decree of Imago Dei. At the end of the line all counterfactuals ((S1/S2/S3/Etc.)) beyond the Rock-Bottom that is Self/Other ((…beyond Man/God…)) within the Edenic are unnecessary and irrelevant while The Edenic itself or the Face-To-Face itself or that Immaterial/Immaterial Interface itself is in fact Necessary both Logically and Metaphysically ((…given the Blueprint…)).

Heaven or Eternal Life begins to arrive within the contours of a discussion about the perfection of love which of course necessarily entails the perfection of reason, which itself entails the perfection of consciousness, which is the perfection of being – as that beautiful freedom called Permanence is (then) actualized or birthed. Indeed we are inherently relational beings and there is a reason for that.

While the Edenic is necessary, the affairs of Privation as anything more than a full-on Ontic-Option are not necessary ((…the Ontic-Option is…the Ontic-Motion into that is not…)).  Notice again that what was impossible then is that all things Adamic would remain eternally within all things Edenic. From there we find, here, now, from within Privation, it is the case that it is impossible now that all things Adamic remain eternally within all things Privation. Conditional Immortality vs. Universalism vs. Hell as ECT are Christendom’s trio of viable/live Maps and, as C.S. Lewis observed, there is “THAT” and then the only other viable option coming in at “2^nd Place” so to speak is the Hindu’s Pantheism ((…although that fails for various reasons…which is another discussion…)).

[…Note several segues with respect to “….God Ought Put An End to Evil…” and “…Ending Evil…” are at http://disq.us/p/1y85jdc which is also linked with https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/okay-so-laura-ingalls-wilder-was-a-racist-now-what/#comment-4246327632 …]

[…Note that several segues are in “With Or Without The Fall vis-à-vis All Possible Worlds” at http://disq.us/p/1zxdloe which is also linked with https://randalrauser.com/2018/08/can-violence-ever-serve-a-redemptive-purpose/#comment-4349160446 …]

[…J.L. Schellenberg’s “A New Logical Problem of Evil” is unpacked in “Objective And Irreducible Evil Exists Therefore Objective and Irreducible Good Exists Therefore God Exists” which is at https://metachristianity.com/objective-and-irreducible-evil-exists-therefore-objective-and-irreducible-good-exists-therefore-god-exists/…]

What About Pre-Eden & Evolution & Cosmic Fairness & Cosmic Justice & Hell?

Yes, in a moment. But first, an excerpt from another essay to summarize the content so far before moving onto “What About Pre-Eden & Evolution & Cosmic Fairness & Cosmic Justice & Hell?“. Note the excerpt is a bit long so it is sandwiched “Begin Excerpt For Summary” and “End Excerpt For Summary” beginning here:

Begin Excerpt For Summary:

The “lens” of the following is “from within” our privation, and yet should we find ourselves in Eden, in Sin-less-ness, all the same definitions, means, and ends arrive in full force. Which is what we expect given that — on force of logic — it is not our choice in Eden with respect to its two outward facing Doors which defines reality, but, rather, it is the Divine Decree which defines not just reality, but all realities:

The résumé and the proposal and the wedding and the begetting……..

With respect to the premise of “…..Sin A or Sin B or Sin C or Sin D or Sin E, and, well, “IF” Sin A or B or C or D or E, “THEN” one will not ultimately see Man’s final felicity – Man’s true good….”, a few points of clarification:

Our syntax has to be precise. Sin matters. The purpose of man and reality matters. “The Good” matters. *Yet* our sins are not what decide our fate or inheritance. Not ultimately. The résumé which we freely and volitionally hand to God is what decides what we inherit.

[A] If on said résumé we find any created-self, any derived-being, the “I” / Myself ((…Self… Privation… “My & Not Thy”…)) am listed as the landing place of Hope or the landing place of Sufficient, then I’m given my preference, my preferred heaven, my first love – the isolated or privatized self – the “Pure-I”, that which is Me/Man minus Fullness of Being, that which is Me/Man minus Fullness of Goodness – and so on.

[B] If on said résumé the all-sufficient Other, the un-created Other, and so on, is instead listed as the landing place of Hope or the landing place of Sufficient then we find on the résumé the content of the immutable love of the Necessary Being – Who Himself Pours Out, and Fills – and thereby if the all-sufficient is found in Christ – then I am given my preference, my preferred Heaven, my first love – the community or unicity or wholeness amid self/other – of God in Man / Man in God – and therewith – through Wedding – through Birth – finally into immutable love wherever I shall motion, whether above my head or beneath my feet or into my own chest – ad infinitum.

Neither our sins nor our righteousness can win the day. Only God’s righteousness wins the day. Only Christ. Our condition does not matter in the sense being discussed here which is what will decide our fate or inheritance.

“That” aqueduct through which the Living Water flows is neither our sin nor our biology nor by logical necessity ANY other Frail & Contingent & Created Any-Thing but is instead that which is given in some measure to all men – namely trust as it relates to our volition and will to freely embrace Life, to freely embrace The Good, to freely embrace Wholeness in Being, to freely embrace Christ, to chase after the Good vis-à-vis love’s acquiescence to the All-Sufficient-Other.

We find in God His Own Self-Outpouring within the Trinitarian Life Trinity and so too by His Own Free Choice to Create & Decrees His Own Image in a World and thereby God utters to us, to His beloved, His Own “You and not I” ((…Logos in Pure Act revealed as Logos in Gethsemane…)) so too we, the beloved, should we so choose, will in like manner join in love’s timeless reciprocity as our own “You and not I” finds our voice – finds THAT voice – finds HIS voice.

Changes will come following that interface, but we all change at different paces and through different degrees. Just ask Peter and others in the book of Acts and in Corinth ….and so on all the way up through modernity and the Christian journey.

It’s the résumé which the applicant submits. It’s not the applicant.

Reason and logic press in and compel our definitions:

This difference between the résumé and the applicant cannot be some other way in any possible world given the two facts of [1] the Decree of the Imago Dei and [2] the fact that we are contingent beings. We cannot rise to the level of being our own means given the end that is the immutable love of God – the immutable love of the Necessary Being.

That’s on the pure force of logic – and Scripture’s metanarrative comports with that is as expected. Going one step further we find that the same goes for love and contingent beings with respect to what necessarily cannot be otherwise within love’s topography as it relates to contingent beings in relationship with the Necessary Being. Man “cannot not” interface with / interact with what D.B. Hart describes as “Being, Consciousness, & Bliss” vis-à-vis “The Experience of God”.

That is *why* Eden was neither Privation nor Heaven but instead found Man between two possible worlds, and, as John 3 is promised in Genesis 3, that is *why* still today Man finds himself between two possible worlds — God’s is an unstoppable love.

The relational nature within Trinity necessarily occasions the metaphysics of love’s reciprocity when God creates Man and that fountainhead shapes all ontological possibility. When God first approaches Man we find, not Heaven, not Privation, but love’s proposal to the beloved, as in:

It is logically necessary that the metaphysics of reciprocity and of self-giving and of self/other vis-à-vis Man/God vis-à-vis love house the triune God’s (…who is love…) free and volitional proposal to His beloved just as it is logically necessary that the metaphysics of love’s proposal house two possible outcomes amid self/other with respect to the contingent being’s free and volitional reply, just as it is logically necessary that the metaphysics of that proposal are not and cannot be the same metaphysics which we will find in the free and volitional Wedding which follows the proposal as “proposing” and “begetting” are not identical.

Being careful with terms: We must always delineate some of the necessary differences with respect to the metaphysics when one is within (….on the one hand…) the arena of “God” or “Trinity” as opposed to when one is within (…on the other hand…) the arena of contingent beings in relation to the Necessary Being (…God/Trinity…).

Conclusion: One of the reasons I am a Christian is that in that paradigm alone reason and logic are satisfied that love’s timeless reciprocity is in fact a contour of reality’s irreducible and immutable substratum and is thereby seamless with the rational. What the rational mind claims as ontic-truth is thereby in fact the highest ethic vis-à-vis love’s timeless reciprocity. Reason as truth-finder is compelled by the unrelenting demands of both logic and love to chase after Christ, and after His Means, and after His Ends.

A Proposal Is Not A Wedding & A Wedding Is Not A Birth

Our Non-Theist friends often say something like, “God should have bypassed Eden and just made the Bride/Groom “already freely married” so to speak….” That is because the skeptic does not realize the logically impossible False Identity Claims he is foisting there with respect to, say,

[A] mutable innocence is identical to [B] immutable perfection (Eden = Heaven/Eternal Life)

….or such as, say,

[A] a Bride and a Groom diving into amalgamation on the volition of one and the annihilation of the volition of the other somehow sums to or is identical to [B] love’s landscape there within the Trinitarian Life

To reason perfectly is to find the perfectly moral, and this in turn is the perfectly loving – perfect reciprocity – and this in turn is the perfectly volitional. Divine Simplicity awaits us there at the end of all of syntax and there is no such thing as “…some faint contour thereof or some part thereof…” which Man perceives and which houses a part-of but not the whole-of as one’s syntax ascends.

Eden’s Innocence is found in Gethsemane’s sinless Adam – and whether it is Man in wholeness or Man in fragmentation does not change the landscape as Man cannot fail to behold not only his own necessary need (…he is a contingent being….) but also he cannot fail to behold full-on reciprocity and self-giving whether in sin or in acquiescence or in glorification. Marriage cannot be something other than Marriage. That which is necessarily “Insufficiency Itself” (…in our case all things Adamic…) free falls into “All Sufficiency Itself” (…as in Being Itself / God…) such that wherever Insufficiency shall turn its eyes, whether above its head, or beneath its feet, or into its own chest, in all vectors it shall find not its own insufficiency but instead the All Sufficiency of He Who fills Within Himself by His Own Self-Outpouring as the Triune God and He Who Fills All In all by necessity of Being and He Who therein through Proposal and through Life-Or-Death and through Wedding and through Birth glorifies The Frail & Created Other — His Beloved — all things Adamic —by the peculiar Debasement of Himself and thereby gifts to His Bride that beautiful freedom called Permanence.

The metaphysical content & yield of [A] The Groom’s Proposal ((…Eden…)) as compared to [B] the metaphysical content & yield of that which sums to Wedding. Notice that the means and ends of all things Edenic and also of all things Privation constitute all things Adamic amid all things Proposal – and – simultaneously – all of that is a radically different category than we find in the metaphysical content & yield of Wedding.

From within Eden we find two outward facing doors as both Eternal Life and Privation sum to a radical change in “ontic-status” and – similarly – from within Privation we find God down here in our Hell – with us – as again we find two – count them – outward facing Doors as both Eternal Life and the End of the frail and mutable contingency we call “Time & Becoming” presses in – as Presentism gives way to Eternalism ((….physics is slowly catching up….)).

Any proposal of love that isn’t free amid “Self/Other” just isn’t a trinitarian love. While it is the case that Universalism is necessarily possible (…given the volitional nature of love vis-à-vis Christianity’s trinitarian metaphysic…) even as in seamless lucidity Universalism is not necessarily actualized (…given the volitional nature of love vis-à-vis Christianity’s trinitarian metaphysic…). Given, that is, the Decree of Imago Dei. We have to be careful about our definitions because all of “that” of course is the metaphysical landscape of love’s Proposal. Which is necessarily going to be irreducibly different than the metaphysical landscape of love’s Wedding. Which is necessarily going to be irreducibly different than the metaphysical landscape of a Birth.

The content & yield of A is necessarily distinct from the content and yield of B such that “B = A” is a metaphysical absurdity. Conflating and/or equating one landscape for another isn’t going to give one the definitions specific to the uniquely Christian metaphysic – planet Earth’s only thoroughly Trinitarian Metaphysic

End Excerpt For Summary.

And, so, now….

What About Pre-Eden & Evolution & Cosmic Fairness & Cosmic Justice & Hell?

Scripture lacks the provision of logical certainty with respect to a. Eternal Conscious Torment vs. b. Universalism vs. c. Conditional Immortality. It is here where the Non-Theist must not over-reach as we discover Scripture’s lack of logical compulsion into logical certainty there.  In fact we find obvious and even necessary reasons for that ambiguity ((..briefly http://disq.us/p/1z06rze..))  — as per 1. http://disq.us/p/1z00vz7 and 2. http://disq.us/p/1xvkoyr and 3. http://disq.us/p/1yd9lxj and 4. http://disq.us/p/1z7j4cr and 5.  http://disq.us/p/1z06rze and 6.  http://disq.us/p/1z4bl75 and 7. http://disq.us/p/1z4ce3b and 8. https://metachristianity.com/heaven-hell-cosmic-fairness-ethic-love/

One of those reasons for Scripture’s Designed Ambiguity is the fallacy of Necessity or Goodness to any sort of “Threat-Of-Bad-Outcome-Full-Stop” as any sort of paradigmatic necessity or as a kind of Meaning-Maker in any body of premises dealing with the interface of God/Man ((…that shows up within silly straw-men akin to “…but the Bible is all about THREATS….!” and so on….)) — as per the provided links above.

Okay That Makes Sense But What About Hell? Where love itself is concerned and where the highest ethic is concerned, we find self-giving love and it is the Non-Theist’s painfully necessary metaphysical reality that all his own explanatory termini are constituted of tediously complex self-negations amid ultimately fictitious “As-If’s” ending in the pains of metaphysical elimination immersed within auto-hypnosis wrapped up inside of Noble Lies as Irreducible Moral Facts independent of Contingent Abstractions are never retained in the end and as such they factually fail to do the necessary “ontic-work” when needed.

Regarding Pre-Eden vectors, as noted elsewhere in this essay there are the following obvious facts:

1. Man is found lifeless outside of Eden. Made of the ground.
2. The Breath of God births Life, the Imago Dei. Still outside of Eden.
3. It is only then that the Adamic and the Edenic
4. Eden cannot remain, is not God’s Ideal, and has two *outward* facing Doors/Trees, each necessitating a radical “ontic-change”.
5. The Edenic wasn’t Man’s Final Felicity — By Design.
6. Everything from Genesis until “Now” is in a Downhill Ontic relative to the Edenic & sums to Privation.

Regarding Hell again ((…also see https://metachristianity.com/heaven-hell-cosmic-fairness-ethic-love/…)) there is the following:

Begin excerpt:

With respect to (…actual, metaphysical, cosmic, ultimate…); fairness, and justice, and injustice, there are very important differences of course (…and that work will have to be done further downstream…), but, the only players with ANY possible claim to rational (…actual, metaphysical, cosmic, ultimate…) resolution of evil, of injustice, of unfairness, are:

A — Hell defined as ECT (hence Christianity)
B — Universalism (hence Christianity)
C — Conditional Immortality (hence Christianity)
D — Hinduism (not Spinoza’s pantheism for many reasons, and not Buddhism’s equivocation upon Metaphysical Naturalism)

Indifferent and Casually Inert “Platonic Moral Facts” are one option but ((again another discussion)) they too fail within the contours of Intentionility || Self-Other || Self-Giving ((and so on)).

End excerpt.

Regarding Christendom’s internal discussions surrounding the box called Pre-Eden and as for Christendom’s internal discussions surrounding the box called [ECT vs. Conditional Immortality vs. Universalism] — well those are fun discussions to have but those two boxes are irrelevant to the Necessity of Logos vis-à-vis Incarnation regardless of “The Adamic’s Path” out of The Edenic and, also, those two boxes are irrelevant to the content which forces the necessity of all things Edenic ((…recall the trio of Landscapes amid Proposal/Reply & Wedding/Traversal & Birth/The Eternal and so on…)).

W.L. Craig’s “Could God Create a Morally Perfect Being?” is at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/could-god-create-a-morally-perfect-being-revisited/ and makes the following observation:

Quote:

“My reply is based on the idea that moral perfection is a uniquely divine property. To be morally perfect is to embody goodness itself, to be maximally good. If you agree… that being the Supreme Good makes a being worthy of worship, then it immediately follows that that being is God. For by definition God is a being worthy of worship. Nothing else but God is worthy of worship (as opposed to just admiration). So if a being is morally perfect and therefore God, it must have all the essential properties of God, including omniscience, omnipotence, eternity, necessity, and so on. My answer implies that a human person cannot be a morally perfect being, or he would be God. Dave asks, What about Adam?  In Christian theology, Adam is not morally perfect. He is morally innocent prior to the Fall but not morally perfect. Even in heaven, free from sin, our righteousness will be finite, not like the infinite goodness of God. So I suspect that people’s reservations about my claim were based on a different understanding of “morally perfect.”  Perhaps they interpreted it to mean something like “sinless.” In that case God can (and did) create a sinless human being. But sinlessness should not be equated with moral perfection, which is a positive quality of infinite magnitude.”

End quote.

Okay That Makes Sense But What About Either-Or?

Either Indifference Or Else Joy At Lost Souls? 

Once we land at A/B/C/D we find another problem of a Strawman or Misdirection of concern, and that is found in a kind of either/or amid Either Pity Or Indifference with respect to Lost Souls or we can say Either Evil-Indifference Or Evil-Joy at the Good of the Many should my beloved in fact refuse All-Sufficiency/Community and be a Lost Soul.

There are several problems with that approach. For one thing it is an obviously false dichotomy. One has both Joy at Justice & Fairness ((Etc.)) and Grieves at the harm of one’s beloved — and — note that IF those Sentiments press on one’s moral intuition to affirm/deny or to somehow go farther/higher THEN one must say Good-Bye to all Non-Theistic Fates/Paradigms as one is left with —again — A/B/C/D described above.  For another thing recall the fact Non-Theism’s own demands for Justice and Joy and Goodness betray Non-Theism itself as we just saw earlier with respect to any full-on Ontological Closure given the following:  [Death] is the #1 Killer in the World. Therefore [Eternal Life] and nothing less is the #1 dissolution of our #1 problem. In fact, BUT FOR [Eternal Life] there is no Ontic Resolution of the #1 killer in the World.

There are no other players on the stage with the sort of currency required here (…see “Hell, Cosmic Fairness, & The Ethic of Love” – at https://metachristianity.com/heaven-hell-cosmic-fairness-ethic-love/ …).

Another problem with the complaint…. IF ECT troubles us (…and it should, in one sense because we may be one of those who think it true and want to find closure there — or – in another sense because we may be one of those who think it false and yet reject Non-Theism’s rock-bottom of Cosmic Indifference…) and IF we value Cosmic Fairness and Goodness and so on THEN we are still left with only four viable options wrt available vectors and all available vectors are outside of Non-Theism (certainly) and inside of Christianity (certainly) and/or Hinduism (possibly). Again the appeal to [Causally Inert Non-Self Platonic Abstract Objects] fails in key areas as again that is another discussion.

That carries forward into 2000 years of internal dialogue within Christendom with respect to the Trio of ECT vs. Universalism vs. Conditional Immortality and, then, quite seamlessly, to the following:

“To demand of the loveless and the self-imprisioned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven…Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of misery are no longer able to infect it: or else for ever and ever the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject for themselves. I know it has a grand sound to say ye’ll accept no salvation which leaves one creature in the dark outside. But watch the sophistry or ye’ll make a Dog in the Manger the tyrant of the universe.” (…by C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce…)

I often ask the Non-Theist which of the following vectors he is going to embrace as he trades away his now obviously immoral/amoral Non-Theism when discussing this topic:

A — Hell defined as ECT (hence Christianity)
B — Universalism (hence Christianity)
C — Conditional Immortality (hence Christianity)
D — Hinduism (not Spinoza’s pantheism for many reasons, and not Buddhism’s equivocation upon Metaphysical Naturalism)

The reply is typically a refusal to embrace the very thing they are opining about with respect to what ought be present. It’s quite peculiar.

Again recall that it is the case that Scripture lacks the provision of logical certainty with respect to Eternal Conscious Torment vs. Universalism vs. Conditional Immortality. It is here where the Non-Theist must not over-reach as we discover Scripture’s lack of logical compulsion into logical certainty there.  In fact we find obvious and even necessary reasons for that ambiguity ((…briefly http://disq.us/p/1z06rze …)) — as per 1. http://disq.us/p/1z00vz7 and 2. http://disq.us/p/1xvkoyr and 3. http://disq.us/p/1yd9lxj and 4. http://disq.us/p/1z7j4cr and 5.  http://disq.us/p/1z06rze and 6.  http://disq.us/p/1z4bl75 and 7. http://disq.us/p/1z4ce3b and 8. https://metachristianity.com/heaven-hell-cosmic-fairness-ethic-love/

Covalent Bonds & Body & Pre-Eden & Eden’s Immaterial/Immaterial Fact-To-Face

 A bit more on the P/G or that Immaterial/Immaterial or that Face-To-Face amid God/Man with respect to freedom amid the Edenic / Adamic:

Whatever “Nature” Pre-Eden was/is and whatever “Nature” the Edenic was/is and whatever the nature of the map of the Adamic’s journey of having been created outside of Eden, and, then, placed inside of Eden and, then, found amid genuine ontic-possibilities with respect to Eden’s Two Outward facing Doors/Trees ( Privation / Eternal Life ) and, then, found freely moving into, now, Privation – and so on – is all, specifically, irrelevant to the actual Means and the actual Ends which we find “in-play”. The question of “Define Human” cannot “Begin & End” in Covalent bonds but THAT questions is not THIS question of all things Adamic/Edenic/Prvation Etc. In fact THAT question is one of Theism/Non-Theism. With respect to “Define Human” there is more to that specifically in Imago Dei And Closure In An Actual Human Nature And Rejecting The Eternally Open Ended — at https://metachristianity.com/imago-dei-and-closure-in-an-actual-human-nature-and-rejecting-the-eternally-open-ended/

No amount of mapping of material particle cascades in motion from dirt to man can account for the whole of The Adamic given the metaphysical baggage of Materialism or Non-Theism (…or whatever…) and given the necessary means for the convertibility of necessary transcendentals.

Or, we can say: After all, there is more to the Adamic than the corporeal and that is WHY is we can and do say that the “ontological history of becoming” with respect to the Body proper (the corporeal) is not convertible with the “ontological history of becoming” of the whole of The Adamic. The irreducible I/Self houses an ontic which outdistances or outreaches the purely corporeal. Scripture finds God using dust and, then, that which is Dirt-To-Man finds the Lifeless Adamic outside of Eden, and so on ((…hence the bizarre and irrational nature of the claims which our Non-Theist friends make about Dirt-To-Man or evolution somehow being a “problem” for the Christian metaphysic…)).

Eden’s two outward facing Doors are not a kind of tacked-on-forget-for-now reality but in fact force our hand given that Eden’s Non-Culpable Non-Perfect landscape is NOT God’s Ideal for Mankind forever as each of Eden’s two Outward facing doors necessitate a radical “ontic-change” in all things Adamic ((…one Door/Tree is the Adamic’s Privation ((in Self)) while the other Door/Tree is God’s Eternal Ideal for the Adamic ((namely God’s Own Self)) and so on…)).

The Adamic cannot find Eternal Life, God’s Eternal Ideal, other than by traversing that landscape of God’s / His love’s Proposal amid the Adamic’s Reply amid the syntax of a Wedding.

The wording of “Eden’s non-culpable / non-perfect” juxtaposes the wording of Eden’s “innocence plus non-perfection-of-being” alongside the wording of our own current Privation’s “non-innocence plus non-perfection-of-being“.

IF in fact it was the case ((as per Ontic-Fact)) that the Edenic Adamic was free to do “otherwise” THEN in fact that “otherwise” cannot sum to “An Option-Without-Being” ((as in a Fake Option)) or we can say that it cannot sum to “Ontic Non-Entity” nor can it sum to a kind of Ontic Noble Lie told by the Necessary Being.

In fact God / Omnipotence cannot create a being that is in fact free to do Non-Entity – or we can say that God cannot create a being that is in fact free to do Non-Being. We cannot equate “IN FACT Free-To-Do-No-Thing” to “IN FACT Free-To-Do-Otherwise”. And we can just agree that the Necessary Being has not told us any sort of Ontic Noble Lie there in the Edenic. ANY epistemic which cannot contain Eden and Eden’s possible worlds has, from the start, a suspicious ontic already in jeopardy.

Do we have an epistemological frame which can contain the ontological frame of Eden’s possible worlds?

The Christian metaphysic subsumes all of it and, therefore, any epistemology which self-negates as it moves within/amid Pre-Eden, Eden, Privation, and God’s Eternal Ideal (Eternal Life, Etc.) is somehow straying — especially if such moves are taken at the expense of readily available, more lucid epistemological and ontological alternatives.

Scripture defines reality by FAR more than Privation and its various contours. That is because CHRIST is FAR more expansive than the boundaries thereof.

Should Privation/Fall NOT Have Actualized 

Then Incarnation nonetheless, then Christ and thereby God meeting the Adamic not in metaphorical gibberish for Christ *is* God meeting all things Adamic not in metaphor but in fact Fact-To-Face within Time and Physicality. We are STILL left with the Landscape of the Edenic and of Proposal and of Wedding and of Birth. Any metaphysic which does not account for the whole-show becomes anemic.

Yes, SURE we DO have a kind of Lens or Vantage point from a “one-side-of-the-coin” sort of epistemic in describing what God and God’s Will at times LOOKS LIKE from WITHIN the pains of our Privation and that is understandable. But too often in Scripture far too much breaks through, leaks through, and reminds us from whence we have come — which is NOT from Eternal Life and not God’s Eternal Ideal for the Adamic but, rather, from The Adamic’s journey of having been created outside of Eden, and, his Lifeless Body, then placed inside of Eden and, then, found amid genuine full-on Possible Worlds vis-à-vis full-on Ontic-Possibilities with respect to Eden’s two Outward facing Doors/Trees ((…Privation vis. Self || Eternal Life vis. Self/Other…)) and, then, found freely moving into the pains of Privation and, then, in “The Now”, those same fateful Landscapes remain ever Within & Around us. We must remember that we are *seeing* all of it from *within* Privation, and, we must remember that the Christian metaphysic DOES have the means to an epistemology which captures BOTH the sightlines from WITHIN Privation AND the sightlines from OUTSIDE of Privation. How uncanny.

With & Without The Fall — Must the Necessary Being, or All-Sufficiency vis-à-vis Good vis-à-vis Being in fact Pour-Out and Into all that is Insufficient, all that is Contingent, all that is The Adamic?

In fact it is logically impossible for the perfection of being to come by any lesser means and therein the only rational Means to the End that is Unending Wholeness is nothing less than All Sufficiency Himself vis-à-vis Goodness Himself vis-à-vis Being Himself and His Own Self-Outpouring into and through to the bitter ends of all things Adamic – as all the syntax of Logos in descent pushes through.

Whence can the Contingent Being find Eternal Life but for the Necessary Being?

Whence can the Contingent Being’s necessary insufficiency with respect to self-sufficiency find Eternal Life but for that which sums to Necessary All-Sufficiency as the Necessary Being’s Self-Sufficiency?

There we come to that unavoidable Immaterial/Immaterial interface amid love’s Self/Other as it relates to “Contingent-Being / Necessary-Being” and our own acquiescence to God wherein we find “Eternal Life” and that arrives in and by nothing less than God or All Sufficiency Himself timelessly pouring out and the Adamic or Insufficiency Itself timelessly filling.

All the necessary content is there and we find in all accounts – and this is key – that whether we speak of pre or post privation, or whether we speak of with privation or without privation – the Adamic finds himself before that fateful Tree called Life.

If the Cross is 1. mere gesture, then it isn’t 2. All-Sufficiency’s Self-Outpouring. In a world of Time & Physicality, “2” will traverse Time & Physicality to the bitter ends of The Adamic. And nothing less than Incarnation has that *reach*.

Notice the progression:

If love, then Eden. Eden is not Heaven. The fact of the *radical* “Ontic Change” via the “Door” termed “Eternal Life” demonstrates that. Therefore: Incarnation becomes unavoidable regardless of our choice in Eden. Once again we find unavoidable syntax:

 IF in fact it was the case ((as per Ontic-Fact)) that the Edenic Adamic was free to do “otherwise” THEN in fact that “otherwise” cannot sum to “An Option-Without-Being” ((as in a Fake Option)) or we can say that it cannot sum to “Ontic Non-Entity” nor can it sum to a kind of Ontic Noble Lie told by the Necessary Being.

In fact God / Omnipotence cannot create a being that is in fact free to do Non-Entity – or we can say that God cannot create a being that is in fact free to do Non-Being. We cannot equate “IN FACT Free-To-Do-No-Thing” to “IN FACT Free-To-Do-Otherwise”. And we can just agree that the Necessary Being has not told us any sort of Ontic Noble Lie there in the Edenic. ANY epistemic which cannot contain Eden and Eden’s possible worlds has, from the start, a suspicious ontic already in jeopardy. Again there is context in With Or Without The Fall vis-à-vis All Possible Worlds – at http://disq.us/p/1zxdloe

Why Create If Evil Is Possible? What about Eden & Possible Worlds?

What about faulting God for begetting love as such relates to God Creating?  Most of what has come up to this point is looking at Ending Evil vis-à-vis Ending Privation but of course Fall Or No Fall we find the SAME unavoidable interface amid God/Man or amid Necessary-Being/Contingent-Being and that is because Sin Or No Sin we find in Man, quite obviously, that which sums to the Necessary Insufficiency of ANY Contingent Being vis-à-vis its own Self-Existence. Obviously the seamlessness which we find here in the syntax of Fall-Or-No-Fall adds context and reach and so the following are a few items added only for context (…and not to give any full-on argument….) with respect to “The-Necessity-Of-The-Edenic” and so on:

1. True In All Possible Worlds —PART 1— True Pre-Eden – True In Eden – True In Privation Pre/Post Christ – True Until Wholeness / Heaven – True After – True Always & Alreadywhich is at http://disq.us/p/1zzs59j 
2. True In All Possible Worlds —PART 2— True Pre-Eden – True In Eden – True In Privation Pre/Post Christ – True Until Wholeness / Heaven – True After – True Always & Alreadywhich is at http://disq.us/p/1zzy8ml
3. The Adamic, The Edenic, Free Will, God’s Will, God’s Decree, Incarnation, and Possible Worlds —PART 1— at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/free_will_makes_sense_in_the_christian_story/#comment-3538979858
4. The Adamic, The Edenic, Free Will, God’s Will, God’s Decree, Incarnation, and Possible Worlds —PART 2— at http://disq.us/p/1zvghk8
5. The Adamic, The Edenic, Free Will, God’s Will, God’s Decree, Incarnation, and Possible Worlds —PART 3— at http://disq.us/p/1zzsxyp
6. With Or Without The Fall vis-à-vis All Possible Worlds — at http://disq.us/p/1zxdloe
7. The Question of Causality vis-à-vis Causes of Evil: Did God Create Evil? — at http://disq.us/p/1zxdq9v

[…J.L. Schellenberg’s “A New Logical Problem of Evil” is unpacked in “Objective And Irreducible Evil Exists Therefore Objective and Irreducible Good Exists Therefore God Exists” which is at https://metachristianity.com/objective-and-irreducible-evil-exists-therefore-objective-and-irreducible-good-exists-therefore-god-exists/…]

From those links above we have a few brief samples of possible claims that may or may not push through:

A — God created possible worlds vis-à-vis creating the Edenic and therefore God created Evil.

B — God created possible worlds vis-à-vis creating the Edenic and therein God did not Create Evil.

C — Given the Sum of Evil it is the case that God’s Reasons for permitting said Evil are inscrutable, even unintelligible.

D — It is the case that [Gratuitous Evil] Is A Metaphysical Impossibility.

E — Reality’s Blueprint finds Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Irreducible Being

As we work through those it turns out that the claim, “God’s reasons for allowing evil are inscrutable & unintelligible…” is incoherent and even demonstrably false as all vectors converge within “D”  and “E” in our discovery of the fact that it is the case that Gratuitous Evil is a metaphysical impossibility and, also, as all vectors land in in a full-on contradiction of the the fallacy/error of Occasionalism (…found in “A”….). For example, recall from earlier that the following is NOT quite accurate:

“…..God allows various evils to occur because they will result, ultimately, in a surfeit of goods which outweighs the evils endured. Perhaps the simplest way to put the idea is as follows: no pain, no gain…..”

The reason that is not quite accurate is as follows:

The Greater Good umbrella does not find God allowing [ABC and/or the Possibility of ABC] “….in order to get to….” XYZ. Instead, God allows [ABC and/or the Possibility of ABC] not to gain or to get to some End but, rather, because it is a logical outflow (it is logically necessary) given His Decree of this or that World or Reality (…or etc.) — and it is remarkable how so many can muddy the waters with this concept which is no more complicated than the following:

To Decree “Square v. World X” is to find “Round v. World X” an impossibility (and so on).

Man’s final good, his true felicity, his Terminus or End is, given the Decree of the Imago Dei, nothing less than God Himself and therefore the options/possibilities regarding Man’s Ends are never ultimately between Ends vis-à-vis world-contingent possibilities or counterfactuals outside of the immediate interface of Man/God as per Self/Other — but — instead — all options/possibilities regarding Man’s Ends are always inside of / between one’s Self and God — between Self/Other – and why? Well that is obvious once we realize that the only Ontic Blueprint for Ceaseless Self-Giving streams from the Trinitarian Life.

Specific to Gratuitous Evil there is the earlier discussion in this essay. Recall that the why/how it is impossible given that such requires that we find some part of [All Things] which God’s Hand either does not or else cannot Hold/Use for Good (…see http://disq.us/p/1vc9vwd …).

There again we find the incoherence within the Non-Theist’s claim that the Moral Paradigm of what God counts as Good is somehow Unintelligible and/or Inscrutable. Additionally we must again recall Reality’s Blueprint. In all of this we come upon Reality’s only Blueprint of love’s timeless reciprocity and upon reason and upon the fullness of ontological Means and Ends within the eternal Processions of the Trinitarian Life (God / Trinity / Being Itself ). All of that provides us with the following ontology:

The irreducibly rational just is ontologically seamless with the irreducibly beautiful which just is ontologically seamless with the irreducibly moral which just is ontologically seamless with love’s indestructible self-giving — which is itself seamless with the Divine Mind — which is itself seamless with Infinite Consciousness amid Divine Simplicity – which compels us into a thoroughly Trinitarian Metaphysic – and we are thereby compelled into an Adamic landscape wherein the perfection of Reason just is the perfection of Consciousness, which just is the perfection of Love, which just is the perfection of Being.

Before Closing — That Beautiful Freedom Called Permanence – Once Again

Part 1 of 4: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/can_genuine_love_only_be_a_product_of_free_will_video/#comment-3591259515 That will open to (…should…scroll if not…) the comment which opens with: “Continuing — A Qualification: Addressing a fear which some seem to have with respect to losing Permanence or with respect to losing Irresistible, which, as we’ll see, is unwarranted……”

Part 2 of 4: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/can_genuine_love_only_be_a_product_of_free_will_video/#comment-3591342407 That will open to (…should…scroll if not…) the comment which opens with: “Continuing – Permanence: That beautiful Freedom called Permanence is still to come, up ahead. The syntax of such Freedom and such Permanence houses some, not all, but some, of the syntax of Irresistible but such has less to do with TULIP proper and much more to do with the fact that, on the other side of that radical ontic change which is yet to occur (…in the blink of an eye as Scripture puts it…) we find, well, we find several contours. First, we find…..”

Part 3 of 4: https://randalrauser.com/2018/11/do-bad-children-go-to-hell/#comment-4224953310 That will open to (…should…scroll if not…) the comment which opens with: “Whence Free Will in Heaven? Whence that beautiful freedom called Permanence? To begin with: A Proposal ≠A Wedding……”

Part 4 of 4: The Simplicity of I-Thee-Wed as per the content of https://randalrauser.com/2018/05/if-god-wants-to-save-us-why-isnt-salvation-simple/#comment-3906669116 That will open to (…should… Scroll if not…) the comment which begins with: “The Simplicity of I Thee Wed [1] Why The Cross? [2] What Is The Minimum Requirement For Salvation? [3] Why Not Create Perfected Man From The Get-Go? All of those source to the same misunderstanding about the nature of what it is that God Decrees when He Decrees “His Own Image”, as in the Imago Dei. As in “Adam”. As in “Mankind”. Many of the…..”

Divine Freedom In Creating & “Does God Change If He Creates?” 

The following are quotes which speak to questions which naturally arise in this areas and most are from Dr. D. Bonnette who is Thomistic in his approach while one quote is from E. Feser (also Thomistic) and one from Dr. W.L. Craig. The topics deal with Divine Freedom and “Can God Create X / Not Create X?” and “Does God Change If He Creates?” and also with “Cambridge Properties” in God. Following this section of quotes is a list of hyperlinks looking at “Metrics of Pre-Eden vs. Eden vs. Privation vs Perfection” and so on.

Quote 1: “My reply is based on the idea that moral perfection is a uniquely divine property. To be morally perfect is to embody goodness itself, to be maximally good. If you agree… that being the Supreme Good makes a being worthy of worship, then it immediately follows that that being is God. For by definition God is a being worthy of worship. Nothing else but God is worthy of worship (as opposed to just admiration). So if a being is morally perfect and therefore God, it must have all the essential properties of God, including omniscience, omnipotence, eternity, necessity, and so on. My answer implies that a human person cannot be a morally perfect being, or he would be God. Dave asks, What about Adam?  In Christian theology, Adam is not morally perfect. He is morally innocent prior to the Fall but not morally perfect. Even in heaven, free from sin, our righteousness will be finite, not like the infinite goodness of God. So I suspect that people’s reservations about my claim were based on a different understanding of “morally perfect.”  Perhaps they interpreted it to mean something like “sinless.” In that case God can (and did) create a sinless human being. But sinlessness should not be equated with moral perfection, which is a positive quality of infinite magnitude.” ((W.L. Craig))

Quote 2: “With respect to goods less than his own being and goodness, God is completely free to create or not create. Is there a particular problem? The whole point of divine freedom is that it is not necessitated! It was the Neo-Platonists that got involved in God having to create by some sort of necessary emanation. As you know, that logically entails forms of pantheism, since you cannot then define God without reference to creatures on whose creation his very nature depends.” ((Dr. D. Bonnette / http://disq.us/p/22lafgm …))

Quote 3: “By “prior,” do you mean ontologically or temporally prior? My suspicion is that you mean temporally prior, which is the standard understanding of causation among those who follow physics, rather than metaphysics. For the metaphysician, the only true causality must be such that the influence of the cause on the effect is immediate, which means that anything happening at a time prior to the effect cannot actually be the cause. Generally speaking, the cause is said to have to be simultaneous with its effect. If that is the case, then prior efficient and material causes are not true causes of the effect needing explanation.”((from https://strangenotions.com/how-cosmic-existence-reveals-gods-reality/#comment-4512590847 ))

Quote 4: “This is the same error we had on this site some months back — and the refutation of it remains the same. This view assumes that whatever God wills he wills of necessity because he is the Necessary Being. But God’s necessity pertains solely to the necessity of his existence and certain essential properties, since his essence and his existence are identical. This view also arises from the belief that God’s unchangeable eternity is identified with his own will and will act, such that if his will were otherwise he would be a different God.

But, as I said above and as St. Thomas also says, God’s necessity pertains solely to those things that are essential to his nature, such as his own goodness. Thus, God wills his own goodness of necessity, while lesser goods are the object of his free choice, such as to create this world or some other world or no finite world at all. It is true that God is eternal and unchangeable. But what the critics miss is that he is identical with his own eternal free choice, including the choice to create this world and no other. I find Christians have little trouble understanding this simple truth, while atheists find it a mortal stumbling block.

While it is true that God cannot change his will to create this specific world, it is, as St. Thomas points out, a suppositional necessity. That is to say, given that God chose to make this particular world, it is true that he must make this particular world. But nothing makes him have to have chosen as he did. (Note here the misunderstandings that can arise from our need to speak in tensed predication, while God is entirely outside of time in his eternal now in which all his activity is timeless.)

Suppositional necessity means no more than something like the fact that I have chosen to rob a bank means that I now necessarily am choosing to rob this bank — but nothing makes me rob the bank in the first place. So, too, once God in timeless fashion chooses to create this world, it is true that he must choose to create this world — simply a matter of the principle of identity.

Still, Christians easily grasp that God is his own eternal absolutely free choice and that whatever he chooses less than his own goodness can be chosen freely by him. God remains absolutely free with respect to his having created and continuing to create this world.” ((Bonnette // http://disq.us/p/1qskyk5 …which is also linked to with https://strangenotions.com/how-cosmic-existence-reveals-gods-reality/#comment-3796910069 …)).

Quote 5: “I had determined not to add further comments to this thread, but will make one last attempt to address what I see for some of you is a serious question: How can God’s free creation avoid flatly contradicting the principle of sufficient reason? Then I will leave further comments to others. I think I grasp the essence of the objections several have raised. Simply put, the argument is that, if God freely wills to create the world, either:

1— This is a brute fact, having no sufficient reason, and therefore shows that the PSR is not universally true.

—OR—

2— There is a sufficient reason for this choice and God is not actually free, but rather this “choice” flows from his nature necessarily.

St. Thomas argues that God being a necessary being does not entail that his choices flow from his nature necessarily :

“Although God necessarily wills His own goodness, He does not necessarily will things willed on account of His goodness; for his goodness can exist without other things.” Summa Theologiae I, q. 19, a. 3, ad. 2.

The key objecting insight seems to be that, if the free choice has a sufficient reason, then it cannot be really free. While St. Thomas shows that such a free choice need not flow necessarily from the divine nature, one still wonders then from what it does flow, unless there is some sufficient reason for this choice rather than that one, and then the “freedom” appears to be illusory.

The answer lies in the fact that God is truly the First Cause and that his eternal free choice is not moved to act at all. It is never not in act. So, there is no problem of reduction from potency to act. There is no unfolding “decision process” to be gone through.

God exists necessarily because his essence is one with his act of existence. He is his own sufficient reason for being. In light of the divine simplicity, God’s nature is one with its acts. This perfect unity entails, as St. Thomas says, both necessary and non-necessary aspects. Therefore, his non-necessary act to create is no more lacking a sufficient reason than is God himself. Since a brute fact is defined as something that has no sufficient reason, there are no brute facts here.

What flows from that eternal Pure Act flows necessarily with respect to necessary things and non-necessarily with respect to non-necessary things, which latter aspect of the divine being means the same thing as being free and acting freely. The sufficient reason for both necessary and non-necessary aspects is the same divine nature. God’s will flows necessarily from his nature in that he has a will. By definition a will is free with respect to what it can choose, and God can freely choose non-necessary goods.

God’s choice to create this unique world is not random or without reason, since good reasons for this particular world can be posited and God would certainly know them. But why are these reasons selected as the basis for this actual creation as opposed to other possible ones – or even the choice never to have created anything at all? The sufficient reason for that selection is the free choice that necessarily flows from God’s non-necessary relation to goods that are inferior to his own necessarily willed divine goodness.

The demand for a God A vs. God B explanation is not legitimate, since it assumes that all that is in God must flow necessarily from his nature. This misses the non- necessary choice of lesser goods. To demand to know whether God acts necessarily or not is to demand a yes or no answer to a question requiring a complex answer. God acts necessarily with respect to those things that he wills necessarily, such as the divine goodness, but he acts non-necessarily with respect to those things that are not necessary, such as goods less than the divine goodness — including creation of the world.

As St. Thomas points out, the only necessity respecting God’s free creative act is a suppositional necessity. If God has freely chosen to create this unique world, then it is necessary that he has made this choice as opposed to any other. But that does not mean that he had to make this choice, since from all eternity, he has freely chosen this particular creation in a non-necessary manner.

There is but one true God. Any hypothetical “God B” may sound like a logical possibility, but it is not a real possibility. You cannot prove any conclusion against God if one of your premises entails the hypothesis (God B) of something that does not and cannot actually exist, and is in fact metaphysically impossible — given that the one true God can be proven already to have existed from all eternity and that his free will choice to create this unique world is already manifest. You can only have one God at a time — and eternity had no “time” at which this unique God did not exist! No other “God” was ever even an hypothetical possibility in fact.

God necessarily exists and necessarily is free with respect to creating lesser goods than his own goodness. We now know what choice he makes, since we are among the creatures he has elected from all eternity to make and we now see his creation in act.

But this in no way affects the fact that his choice to create this world of lesser goods is both perfectly free and perfectly in conformity with the principle of sufficient reason.

I was taught always to give the best possible reading to any text. I can understand how hard that must be in this case for those who think the Christian God is absurd to begin with. Still, a careful reading of the above depiction of how God can freely create this world without any violation of the principle of sufficient reason should find it coherent, unless it is misread.” ((Bonnette // http://disq.us/p/1lpy1cn …which is also linked to with https://strangenotions.com/are-metaphysical-first-principles-universally-true/#comment-3490150487 …))

Quote 6: “…a thing might be its own reason for being. But that is not to say that it lacks any reason for being. If a thing is not fully self-explained, then it needs something else to complete its explanation. That is the classical meaning of “cause,” not to be confused with the ignorant errors of David Hume. That every being must have a reason for being or becoming does not say whether the reason must be intrinsic or extrinsic to that being. If it is extrinsic, it is called a “cause.” But that in no way rules out the possibility that the reason for being is intrinsic to the being itself. Metaphysicians advance a concept of God in which his essence or nature is identical with his own act of existence, making him the Necessary Being.  But a brute fact has no reason at all, which is entirely other than for something to be its own reason…” End quote ((~by Dr. Dennis Bonnette))

Quote 7: See “Divine Necessity And Created Contingence In Aquinas” by Peter Laughlin – at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2009.00476.x

Quote 8:  “…God can know and cause to be a kind of creation in which there is a beginning and an end, and in which reality progresses through the passage of time in such fashion that at every moment of that passage, the past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. If such a reality itself is possible, then God can create it and know it as such….” ((Bonnette))

Quote 9: “Once again, despite my intention not to re-argue the metaphysical first principles, you have raised the claim that somehow the “logical possibility” that God could have made some other choice for creation than he did as a proof that a brute fact exists, since there is no reason why he would have made this choice rather than that one. And, since the divine simplicity implies that God’s very essence is identical to his own choice, this would be tantamount to allowing that we would have a God B as opposed to a God A with no reason why one existed rather than the other. Hence a brute fact exists.

A single brute fact undoes the universal validity of the principle of sufficient reason. Or else, you argue, if there was a necessity that forces that there be only God A with his choice to create this particular world, then God’s creation would be necessary, which contradicts the Christian dogma of free creation.

Your whole argument is based on pseudo-logic. Notice, it starts with “logical possibility,” not a real or ontological possibility. Logical possibility is the weakest form of possibility, ruling out nothing but self-contradictory claims. As long as the terms of the hypothesis are not evidently self-contradictory, something is claimed to be “logically possible.”

By this standard the following claim is “logically possible:” The Ringling Brothers Circus will hold an encore performance in the atmosphere of Jupiter on next Christmas Eve.” Nothing in the terms appears evidently self-contradictory, but would you really think any of it is possible? No, because the reality implications are clearly impossible and contradictory – not the terms themselves. The standard of real possibility is not playing with words, but presenting an hypothesis that is metaphysically possible, that is, it could really happen.

You try to spin a web of seemingly logical terms, like “necessary” and “contingent,” as if they had the same signification and referents in each and every case, ignoring ontological complexities, such as how God is necessary with respect to his existence, but not necessary with respect to the choice of lesser goods than his own goodness. Reality is not just a game of logic, but must conform to the real being of the world and of God as they actually exist.

If you look back at my article on Metaphysical First Principles as well as the first of my comments in the newest order, you will see that the traditional concept of God is entirely coherent. You use the term, “necessary,” in a logically sloppy manner, trying to conflate God’s necessity of existing with an exclusion of freedom, but this was fully explained by me on the First Principles web page in terms of him being necessary with respect to existence and the divine names, but not necessary with respect to creation of goods lesser than his own infinite goodness. The distinction between necessary and non-necessary objects of his will pertains solely to a diversity in the objects of his will, not to a composition or contradiction in his own essence. Hence, God is properly conceived as eternally identical to his unchanging free choice to have created this particular world.

As an eternal free choice to create this world, it becomes suppositionally necessary that he has eternally made this choice and no other, but that supposition in no way inhibits his true freedom. It is merely a matter of noting that, since he did in fact make this choice, it is necessary that this choice is made.

Since there is one and only one true God whose eternal act of free will is factually identical with his eternal being, it is metaphysically impossible that God could ever have existed in any other manner. That is, the so-called “God B, C, D, or whatever” is not a metaphysical possibility at all – even less so than the Ringling Brothers Circus on Jupiter I described earlier. In fact, to suggest that such an “alternative God” or “alternative choice for God” is a logical possibility is, in fact, a logical impossibility – given the factual existence of the one and only true God with his one and only free act of will – since the supposition of another God contradicts the factual existence of only one possible God, the one who exists in actual fact. His existence as the only true God is not a mere assertion, since it is the product of careful demonstration in the science of metaphysics. I postulate its validity for purposes of this argument.

You claim, “Since multiple wills are logically possible, multiple gods are logically possible.”

This is a perfect example of the logical sloppiness of treating God like a logic lesson for beginners. Multiple wills sound “logically possible,” but they are not ontologically possible, since God has de facto and eternally exercised his will in a specific way with respect to the willing of lesser goods than his own goodness. It is a done deal. So, the fact that the “wills” do not contradict each other does not make them all equally related to actual existence. Solely the one that actually exists is real, and therefore, possible. No other act of will is ontologically possible. Since no other will is really possible, the same applies to your “multiple gods.” One will, one true God. No other “Gods” are actually possible. Remove them from your assumptions.

Moreover, there is no need for a reason why God A exists as opposed to God B, since God B was never possible at all, and you don’t need a special reason to be different than something that does not exist. God is his own reason for existing, and his free will is its own reason for his free choice.

God being his own sufficient reason for existing does not violate the principle of sufficient reason. The principle merely affirms that there must be a reason, not where it must exist. Metaphysically, God is his own reason for existing because he is the only being in which essence is identical to existence. Hence, he exists necessarily. Again, this is the classical concept of God that you are attacking as allegedly “logically” incoherent.

Incidentally, how do we know God exists? That is not the proper topic of this web page, but it is the product of the entire subject of metaphysics applying the principle of sufficient reason, among other principles and truths, to the evidence presented by the world in which we live. I strongly suspect that the reason why atheists so vehemently wish to reject the principle of sufficient reason is simply because they realize that, once you grant its validity, it becomes much more difficult to prevent the human mind from being led from the evidence of this world back to the existence of an Ultimate Sufficient Reason for all that exists, namely, the traditional God.

And it is perfectly kosher to use the PSR to prove God’s existence and properties, since your argument against him here fails if we can use reason to prove that he can exist as is proposed by classical metaphysics. I have shown that his existence is not a brute fact, since it is your logic that has proven false as show above. Hence there was no exception to the PSR and it can be used freely to prove God’s existence.

Moreover, in intellectual honesty, you should face the fact that once you destroy the principle of sufficient reason in any single instance — as you falsely claim you have, you can never be sure that it applies anywhere or at any time. You don’t get to pick and choose. The entire order of science and common sense and human thought becomes Alice in Wonderland, since you can never know when anything has a reason or not. No convenient assumptions that it works for just science when you think you need it. It can never be trusted again.

I made the case for this in my previous OP on first principles, but it needs to be faced squarely by those who would deny it. Never again can the mind ask “why” of anything and be confident that a reason exists. The logic of all mental inferences becomes useless, since reasons need never be given or even expected. And if the real world does not conform to the way the mind works, then we have a name for that: psychosis.

The price for abandoning the principle of sufficient reason is to abandon reason itself, since the human mind reasons by giving reasons for all its truth claims. No reasons given, no reason to take any claims seriously. No reasons needed, no need or ability to reason. Atheists are literally willing to abandon reason to get rid of God.

See my original article on the Metaphysical First Principles and first comment as ordered by “newest” mentioned above.” ((…from Bonnette // ((http://disq.us/p/1lz8b5h …which is also linked to with https://strangenotions.com/what-is-the-true-understanding-of-causality/#comment-3505746293 …))

Quote 10: “I will respond for now only to the first two arguments given above. I am sure many more are to be forthcoming anyway – but I would point out that a careful reading of my entire paper above should answer most of them. The claim that everything must be either necessary or contingent respecting God has been refuted by me several times before and with sufficient distinctions needed to clarify the matter.

God is the Necessary Being, but that means solely that his existence is necessary. It does not mean that everything he does he must do of necessity. Yes, his essence is identical with his act of existence which is why he must exist. And yes, he necessarily must will his own infinite goodness. But, with respect to lesser goods, such as the creation of a finite universe, he is perfectly free, as St. Thomas Aquinas points out, since none of these lesser goods add to or detract from his infinite perfection and goodness. And it is the finite creation that is contingent with respect to its existence, not God.

While there are other aspects which I have explained at length previously, the only thing one needs to know here is that the distinction between what he wills necessarily and what he wills eternally and freely lies in that these acts of divine will are specified as to different objects. As long as God does not will necessarily the same objects as he wills contingently, there is no contradiction involved. So what on earth is the problem?

The real problem appears to be that some simply cannot admit the clear distinction made above and therefore reject the Christian God because he does not fit perfectly into a preconceived logical trap designed to preclude his existence.

The claim that the only two possible choices are either an infinite regress of contingent explanations or a brute fact is simply a false dilemma. There is a third choice, namely, a being who is his own reason for being and is therefore (1) not contingent, but necessary, and (2) not a brute fact either, since a brute fact has no reason at all.

Again, this is simply a matter of trying to force a false logic on the Christian God who is his own reason for being. For some reason, the logic being used appears blind to the possibility of a thing or being being its own reason for being (and for choosing freely) – otherwise why isn’t this logical possibility included in the choices? After all, “sufficient reasons” are logically divided into intrinsic or extrinsic. As I said in the OP, if a being’s reason is extrinsic, the extrinsic reason is called a cause. The Uncaused First Cause is not his own cause, but rather is his own reason for being.” (( http://disq.us/p/1nccip3 …which is also linked to with https://strangenotions.com/brute-facts-vs-sufficient-reasons/#comment-3588243879 …))

Quote 11:

J.N. said,

“You cannot believe all three of the following at once:
1. God is necessary.
2. God is identical to his free choices.
3. God didn’t have to make the choices that he did.”

Dr. Bonnette replied:

“You see, you are imposing certain preconceived notions to your understanding of what it means for God to be necessary. He is the Necessary Being, meaning he cannot no exist. But this does not mean that he is lacking free will and free choice.

Yes, his free choice is eternally identical with his nature or being. From your conflating “necessity” with “determinism,” you have imposed a false notion of what “necessary” means in God.

God is necessary in that he must exist. But it is also necessary that he exist with freedom of choice. What you cannot understand is that, being Eternal, God does not sit there, and then later on, decide to do something — so that his later “choice” is somehow determined by his prior state of existence. It is hard for atheists or agnostics to “get” this, but God is an eternal substantial act of free choice, so that while his existence is necessary, he is also eternally freely determining the things that he chooses to create or not create.

Once again, you are imposing your very faulty metaphysical assumptions into your “flawless” logic about God so as to come up with your desired conclusion — which happens to be totally invalid.” ((…from https://strangenotions.com/existential-inertia-vs-almighty-god/#comment-4981973447 …)) [….bold mine….]

End quote 11

Quote 12:

“….It seems to me that Davies’ point about negative theology here is correct as far as it goes, though incomplete. (In general, it seems to me that Davies’ work perhaps overemphasizes negative theology a bit – as I argue in Aquinas, I think this is true, for example, of his reading of Aquinas’s doctrine that God’s essence and existence are identical.) More could be said in response to the claim that divine simplicity and freedom and incompatible. For example, as I explained in the earlier post on divine simplicity, God’s creating the universe (or just Socrates for that matter) is what Barry Miller (following the lead of Peter Geach) calls a “Cambridge Property” of God, and the doctrine of divine simplicity does not rule out God’s having accidental Cambridge properties. (In fairness to Davies, though, he does make similar points in his other writings on this subject.) There is also to be considered the Scholastic distinction between that which is necessary absolutely and that which is necessary only by supposition. For example, it is not absolutely necessary that I write this blog post – I could have decided to do something else instead – but on the supposition that I am in fact writing it, it is necessary that I am. Similarly, it is not absolutely necessary that God wills to create just the world He has in fact created, but on the supposition that He has willed to create it, it is necessary that He does. There is this crucial difference between my will and God’s, though: Whereas I, being changeable, might in the course of writing this post change my mind and will to do something else instead, God is immutable, and thus cannot change what He has willed from all eternity to create. In short, since by supposition He has willed to create this world, being immutable He cannot do otherwise; but since absolutely He could have willed to create another world or no world at all […no Good is added to / subtracted from God…] He is nevertheless free…..”

End quote 12 ((……from http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05/davies-on-divine-simplicity-and-freedom.html || [brackets mine] || bold mine……))

Christ Is The Thematic Melody Uniting All Scenes And Acts:

“The Scriptures are an opera, with Christ as its central leitmotif. He is the thematic melody uniting the scenes and acts of the various books together. This is what the Christ meant when He said “they are they which testify of me.” And this inspiring melody is what ignited the passion in the disciples saying “did not our heart burn within us when He opened to us the Scriptures?” The text is opened like a curtain call. In operas the curtain call occurs at the end of a performance when individuals return to the stage to be recognized by the audience. And this is precisely what Christ does. He comes before us the reader upon the stage of thematic narrative to be recognized as the main actor. To put this into perspective, when you read about Jonah coming out of the whale, or Lazarus coming out of the tomb, the paschal melody of “Christ is Risen” should be ringing in your ears. Scripture has an instrumental soundtrack, except for when Christ the lyric enters the scene. For hundreds and hundreds of years, mankind sought the meaning of this melody, and what words would be inserted therein. Man wished to know this melody. Christ, the “Word made flesh,” is both the melody itself and its meaning.” (By Ambrose Andreano)

Context & Segues & Links

Two Notes On The following links:

Firstly: about half go to STR’s (Stand To Reason’s) older format and will come up as Status-Error pending some time in the future in which I can redirect the hyperlinks.

Secondly: the links are to comments in Disqus format (for the most part) and therefore should land on a specific comment within a comment section and not at the top of a page. If the latter occurs then A. refresh the page and/or B. simply begin scrolling down as that often triggers the page to jump to the specific target comment and/or C. go to the bottom of any comment (or the page) which shows a “see more” button and click it as that too, like ‘B’, often triggers the page to jump to the specific target comment.

So with that said:

Metrics of Pre-Eden vs. Eden vs. Privation vs Perfection:

1. http://disq.us/p/1ne4r2z
2. http://disq.us/p/1ne4ujz
3. http://disq.us/p/1ne55kr
4. http://disq.us/p/1ne6xjb
5. http://disq.us/p/1n9dmru
6. http://disq.us/p/1slxh6k
7. http://disq.us/p/1goq9gy
8. http://disq.us/p/1gou9pj
9. http://disq.us/p/1gp6lkj
10. http://disq.us/p/1gy65me
11. http://disq.us/p/1gsltgs
12. http://disq.us/p/1hbm03p
13. http://disq.us/p/1xv6v4f
14. http://disq.us/p/1xvfeu6

Metrics of “The Adamic” in “The Edenic” 

1. http://disq.us/p/1n9y1rc
2. http://disq.us/p/1nb8gxs
3. http://disq.us/p/1ne4r2z
4. http://disq.us/p/1ne4ujz
5. http://disq.us/p/1ne55kr
6. http://disq.us/p/1ne6xjb
7. http://disq.us/p/1n9rf6h
8. http://disq.us/p/1n166pv
9. http://disq.us/p/1m6h46p

Metrics of To-Create and Metrics of To-Not-Create

1. http://disq.us/p/1hblyts 
2. http://disq.us/p/1hbm03p
3. http://disq.us/p/1hbmpdy
4. http://disq.us/p/1hbnm37
5. http://disq.us/p/1swp74f
6. http://disq.us/p/1w4hreq
7. http://disq.us/p/1hbplub
8. http://disq.us/p/1dw41zz
9. http://disq.us/p/1vcbs4m

Following Through:

1. http://disq.us/p/1n88dze which carries forward to
2. http://disq.us/p/1n9dmru which carries forward to
3. http://disq.us/p/1n9feuh which carries forward to
4. http://disq.us/p/1n9fawe which carries forward to
5. http://disq.us/p/1n9rf6h which carries forward to
6. http://disq.us/p/1mj0mc2 which carries forward to
7. http://disq.us/p/1zvghk8

 

—END—

More Generally Speaking…

Scripture’s© Singular® Metanarrative© & Its Thematic® Lines©

Divine Command Theory Collapses Into A Metaphysical Absurdity — at https://metachristianity.com/divine-command-theory-collapses-into-a-metaphysical-absurdity/

Amalekites? Conquest? Sinai? Condone? Moral Excellence? Means & Ends? — at http://disq.us/p/1z50shs with a few items for context at http://disq.us/p/1z5th9q

“Kill All That Breathes”?? “Divine Command Theory”??  — at http://disq.us/p/1z5vlo5

For the Half-Narrative — http://disq.us/p/1lrhj88 and http://disq.us/p/1wq4x70

For the Full-Narrative — http://disq.us/p/1knyg3u

Prototypical John Newton v. Everyman — at http://disq.us/p/1kgunj1and also at http://disq.us/p/1z7vifq

For the Non-Theist who tries so hard to agree — at http://disq.us/p/1kj2q0b

“God Ought End Evil?” Ending Evil? Ending Privation?” — at http://disq.us/p/1y85jdc

The Four Overlapping Circles of Racism — at http://disq.us/p/1z71xpg

Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. on Being, Non-Being, & The Summum BonumOf Life — at http://disq.us/p/1z49fop

Shouting “Disagreement Exists!” Is Not An “Argument” — at http://disq.us/p/1z72rat

War is evil? Well yes. And? It’s ugly and on **all** fronts comes up short of The Good? Well yes. And? You’re correct. But agreeing with Scripture’s definitions like that isn’t enough. One has to show that one has one’s OWN Non-Theistic rational justifications for holding such a belief. But you don’t seem to. By that we mean as per a. http://disq.us/p/1y84cou and also as per b. http://disq.us/p/1wq43ok and also as per c. http://disq.us/p/1w6epee and (again) for the Non-Theist who tries so hard to agree — http://disq.us/p/1kj2q0b

Israelite Conquest?

1. http://disq.us/p/1tapp70 
2. http://disq.us/p/1ti6tts
3. http://disq.us/p/1t61aef
4. http://disq.us/p/1t61uz6
5. http://disq.us/p/1t6929l
6. http://disq.us/p/1t69vjj

Old Testament Wars? — at http://disq.us/p/1u7o9ku

“What does that verse **SAY**??” — at http://disq.us/p/1vepymf

Canaanite (Gentile) and Jew and Crumbs and Dogs Eating Crumbs and Basic Reading Comprehension — at http://disq.us/p/1uxge1w

Ancient Israel & War & Syntax & Sinai & Basic Reading Comprehension — at http://disq.us/p/1vec6vg

Tolerance & Society? — at http://disq.us/p/1thty95

Sinai and looking for Moral Excellence:

a. http://disq.us/p/1tgseh0
b. http://disq.us/p/1tgriz7

Leviticus 12 & Sin Offering For Childbirth? Unclean Woman? — at http://disq.us/p/1wutrpn

Male, Female, Egalitarianism, Misogyny, Slavery, Metanarrative, Subnarrative, Bias, Views, & Ontic Definitions — at http://disq.us/p/1u5ej8p

Moral Facts? Non-Theism? To be clear it is NOT Non-Theists who cannot / do not find Moral Facts but — rather — it is their own Non-Theism which cannot find Moral Facts WRT Racism Or Anything Else. How so? Well first we have 3 Narratives as per 1. http://disq.us/p/1mxt9q0 and 2. http://disq.us/p/1mxstu8  and 3. http://disq.us/p/1mxto3s

And secondly we have still more content as per a. http://disq.us/p/1z61v1f and b. http://disq.us/p/1wq43ok and c. http://disq.us/p/1y84cou  and d. http://disq.us/p/1w6epee  and e. http://disq.us/p/1w3l3fn  and f. http://disq.us/p/1titjw1  and g. http://disq.us/p/1j5ioqb  and h. http://disq.us/p/1sozwi7  and i. http://disq.us/p/1u9rudl

—END—

A & S & H – Ananias & Sapphira & Herod

There just is no problem with A & S & H where love and grace and Man are concerned. None. We’ll get to specifics a few paragraphs down, but, first, there are four general “lenses” by which to start unpacking the question of Ananias and Sapphira and Herod and in fact 100% of all Human Beings vis-à-vis the syntax of “Harvest” and the obvious fact that the claim of “…there are Possible Worlds in which such final interfaces are not logically necessary….” is a claim which is itself attempting to affirm a logical impossibility. Here’s those four lenses:

A – What about Ananias and Sapphira? – at https://escapetoreality.org/2015/04/09/what-about-ananias-and-sapphira/

B – How do you explain the violent judgement of Ananias and Sapphira? – at http://reknew.org/2012/08/how-do-you-explain-the-violent-judgement-of-ananias-and-sapphira/

C – Who Killed Herod? – at https://escapetoreality.org/2011/03/01/who-killed-herod/

D – Herod’s Death and the Wrath of God – at https://escapetoreality.org/2014/11/06/death-of-herod-gods-wrath/

E – The larger Map of Reciprocity amid love’s inherent Self/Other is what all of this topography is a part of and is, more broadly speaking, as per the following:

PART 1: ETHICS, PHARAOH, EGYPT’S FIRST BORN, ENOCH, HARVEST, LOVE, & LOGICAL NECESSITY

We Are All Pharaoh – We Are All Enoch – We Are All Egypt’s First Born – at https://metachristianity.com/ethics-pharaoh-egypts-first-born-enoch-harvest-logical-necessity/

PART 2: ETHICS, ANANIAS, SAPPHIRA, HEROD, HARVEST, LOVE, & LOGICAL NECESSITY

We Are All Ananias – We Are All Sapphira – We Are All Herod – at https://metachristianity.com/ethics-ananias-sapphira-herod-harvest-love-logical-necessity 

Note: “The Cursings” via The Psalms adds other context and is at https://metachristianity.com/the-cursings-via-the-psalms/  Before getting to the main topic here, briefly we can comment on a question which often comes up which is Did God Take Them In Pain? The reply to that is looked at more closely in the other “Part” of this content, namely, “Part 1” which is We Are All Pharaoh – We Are All Enoch – We Are All Egypt’s First Born as per https://metachristianity.com/ethics-pharaoh-egypts-first-born-enoch-harvest-logical-necessity/  Also with respect to that same question of “Was There Pain?” see  “Wasn’t There Pain & Suffering In Egypt’s First Born?” as per https://metachristianity.com/wasnt-there-pain-suffering-in-egypts-first-born/ …

To start then in getting into our main topic:

We can begin with some key content which is at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/does-the-atonement-imply-universalism/ and which is helpful in part vis-à-vis locations on the moral map of direct relevance to A & S & H  as per:

1 –  No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. That leads us to….

2 – We are told in Scripture that His Grace has been revealed to the world, to all men. That leads us to….

3 – “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” That leads us to….

4 – “…….every kind of sin and slander will be forgiven of men, but blasphemy against the Spirit cannot be forgiven.…..”

When Christ states that blasphemy “cannot” be forgiven” there are two quotes from Dr. Craig which help:

First:

“In the historical context, Jesus’ remark was triggered by unbelievers’ attributing God’s work in Jesus to Satan. More generally, the sin consists in resolutely resisting the Holy Spirit by refusing to recognize God’s work in Christ. When an unbeliever commits this sin, it is called “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”; when a Christian commits this sin, it is called “apostasy”.

Second:

“The sin of rejecting God and His grace is a sort of Meta-Level or Higher-Order sin that cuts one off from the provision for sin that God has provided.”

There is a critical segue here to the syntax of “cannot forgive” and that is the nature of this singular Meta-Level sin (….as compared to all other sins which are (all) Lower-Order sins….) which separate us from Him. The lucidity of Christ’s word “cannot” (blasphemy cannot be forgiven) for the only (single) Meta-Level sin in existence (…those informed and volitional affairs which Man knowingly, in the light of Day, makes between Self/Other or specifically between Man/God….) arrives within the intellectual grounds of a logical impossibility in that God cannot make a round square – God’s love for us does not violate, ultimately, our will as a matter of Decree and thus He “cannot untie that knot” because – simply – love cannot make automatons because – simply – love and automaton are mutually exclusive terms (….don’t conflate the mutable status of our own being while within “Eden” or “Privation” as such is the content and yield of His Proposal / Her Reply (so to speak) which is not the same content/yield as we find within Wedding wherein Permanence arrives – though not by the Means we may initially suppose…..for more on that see perhaps Divine Command Theory Collapses Into A Metaphysical Absurdity at  https://metachristianity.com/divine-command-theory-collapses-into-a-metaphysical-absurdity/ specifically its links near its end regarding the Metrics of Pre-Eden vs. Eden v. Privation vs. Perfection ……). That carries forward then into the following:

Judgment is not about our sins, it is only about our final delight/choice as such lands within our choice amid The Self (…Necessary Insufficiency….) and the Necessary Being vis-à-vis the term God (….Necessary All-Sufficiency….).  Judgment is not, and cannot be, on the weight of those “first-order sins” or else God’s Own All-Sufficiency / Cross would be blasphemed by….. God Himself, which forces a reductio ad absurdum.  Rather, Judgment is on, is about, the only, single, Meta-Level sin in existence: His All-Sufficiency / Cross is blasphemed by…. Man himself.  The terminus is never about our sins, it’s always (and only) about which resumé one delights in, trusts in, loves, prefers, chooses — the resumé of the Self which is necessarily contingent & insufficient — or the resumé  of The-Other (God’s Own Self-Outpouring) which is (as God) Necessary v. The Necessary Being and (in His Self-Outpouring) All-Sufficient.

There are no other motions in play amid Man/God and the defense of that is this:  Christ.

For any Created Self the issue of one’s own Necessary Insufficiency amid God’s Own Necessary All-Sufficiency will come racing to the forefront sooner or later, at some ontic-seam somewhere.  Period. Hard Stop. Which is to say that any assertion that it can be otherwise vis-à-vis The-Necessary / The-Contingent is an absurd statement. Literally.  Don’t worry – we’re still inching towards A & S & H.

There comes a point in Time for all men, for all of us, when our mutable and temporal I-Will-s become immutable and timeless I-Can-s inside of Life, and, just the same, there comes a point in Time for all of us, when our mutable and temporal I-Will-Not-s become immutable and timeless I-Cannot-s outside of Life.

This isn’t a big mystery:  Time itself is not a fundamental feature of reality’s concrete furniture and though Physics is excited to discover this, such is, well, old news per the Christian Metaphysic vis-à-vis Scripture’s Metanarrative. Therein the stuff of Time is wholly in God’s hand and the mere fact that the particular juncture we speak of here (….our Time runs out in this life…) does not somehow “change” what that God/Time interaction actually is merely by it coming “right now” or merely by coming “ten years from now”.  Again this isn’t a big mystery – this is merely what we know of Time vis-à-vis Physics even as this is all simply the age-old & well-known contour of reality which sums to Man before God, Finally, Ultimately (…perhaps even as Time gives way to Timelessness…).

There comes a point in Time when our temporal “I Will Have Thy Resume’ Of Thy Grace” enters the timeless, and, just the same, there comes a point in Time when our temporal “I Will Have My Resume’ Of My Self” enters the timeless.  We all run out of Time – but – that one fact in itself is NOT what seals our fate. Rather – our own In-The-Light-Of-Day motion into that one and only Meta-Level Door vis-à-vis The-Self / Necessary-Insufficiency (on the one hand) or else The-Other / All-Sufficiency (on the other hand) is what traverses that interface of All-Sins-Will-Be-Forgiven (on the one hand) or else One Meta-Level Sin CANNOT Be Forgiven (on the other hand).

A & S & H & Timing? The mere fact that we sin in the light of day, knowingly, is, here, of no relevance whatsoever. We cannot equate or conflate “A” for “B” where A and B are as follows:

A. Knowingly Sinning In The Light Of Day

B. Finally Trusting In – Delighting In – The Self’s Necessary Insufficiency As Opposed To The-All-Sufficient-Other.

“A” is not “B” — We cannot equate those such that we make the error of stating the False Identity Claim of “A = B”.  These three persons fully – in the light of day – spy God’s Spirit in ways there in Acts which none of us have ever seen and…. well? Well so far that just isn’t a problem vis-à-vis what All-Sufficiency vis-à-vis Grace vis-à-vis the Cruciform Lens can and will untie. Nothing so far sums to the Meta-Level Sin which Scripture (….see Dr. Craig’s content earlier…) describes as part of the architecture within that Interface amid God/Man vis-à-vis the term “Harvest” vis-à-vis the logical necessity of 100% of all things Adamic.

Fully sighted there in that full light of day we find that A & S & H directly, one-on-one, interface with and refuse Him for the sake of…well…. what? A Terminus which is somehow higher than “The Necessary Being”?  Well of course not. Rather, in that light of genuine sight they motion into what they love and delight in – and so far EVEN THAT just isn’t a problem vis-à-vis what All-Sufficiency vis-à-vis Grace vis-à-vis the Cruciform Lens can and will untie. Nothing EVEN STILL (so far) sums to the Meta-Level Sin which Scripture (….see Dr. Craig’s content earlier…) describes as part of the architecture within that Interface amid God/Man vis-à-vis the term “Harvest” vis-à-vis the logical necessity of 100% of all things Adamic.

The architecture there of delighting in various contours of our own Humanity such as Safety and Security and (…say…) Sex and Companionship and Food and so on, and so on, only speaks to Inventions-Of-God and, therein, are not “evil-in-and-of-themselves” (so to speak).  As Dr. Craig describes it:

“……My philosophy professor Norman Geisler used to put it in this very provocative way: everything about Satan is good. That is to say, Satan has properties like existence, power, intelligence; these are all good things. But the evil that he is characterized by is a privation of right order in his will, and is not a positive thing….” (by W.L. Craig at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/questions-on-the-end-of-time-determinism-and-string-theory  …..)

So far A & S & H are not found traversing that proverbial Ontic-Seam wherein Mutability gives way to Permanence.  So far this isn’t a big mystery – again for a reminder – Time itself is not a fundamental feature of reality’s concrete furniture and though Physics is excited to discover this, such is, well, old news per the Christian Metaphysic vis-à-vis Scripture’s Metanarrative. Therein the stuff of Time is wholly in God’s hand and the mere fact that the particular juncture we speak of here (….our Time runs out in this life…) does not somehow “change” what that God/Time interaction actually is merely by it coming “right now” or merely by coming “ten years from now”.  Again this isn’t a big mystery – this is merely what we know of Time vis-à-vis Physics even as this is all simply the age-old & well-known contour of reality which sums to Man before God, Finally, Ultimately (…perhaps even as Time gives way to Timelessness…).

Again: There comes a point in Time when our temporal “I Will Have Thy Resume’ Of Thy Grace” enters the timeless, and, just the same, there comes a point in Time when our temporal “I Will Have My Resume’ Of My Self” enters the timeless.

Scripture describes those vectors as that one, and only, Meta-Level Motion and sums to nothing more nor less than the Self motioning into its own Self – what some describe as the Isolated-I, the Pure-Self and this just is the death of, refusal of, love’s topography vis-à-vis Self/Other. That becomes immediately obvious once we recall that love just “is” those motions amid/among all the stuff of “Self/Other” and here is where our True End – which is the Trinitarian Life vis-à-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis love – this is where THAT is refused and traded away in exchange for the Isolated-I, for Isolation, for Privation and THAT in the end sums to something akin to “Reality-Minus-Self/Other” – which sums to something akin to “loveless-ness”.

Sighted-Refusal of All-Sufficiency seems to be (as far as we can find in scripture) the only Meta-Level Sin which “cannot” be (and therefore is not) untied by Grace – because Grace cannot make round squares.

As for eventual immutability where Man is concerned: It seems there is a Choice that – once Man so motions – leads to all those affairs of incarnation’s amalgamation and there amid what just “is” God-In-Man, Man-In-God, wherever Man (Contingency) shall turn his eyes, whether above his head, or beneath his feet, or into his own chest, he shall see, he shall find – not his (Man’s) own insufficiency and contingency, but His (Immutable Love’s) Own All-Sufficiency and Necessity.

All Men / 100% of Human Beings ultimately intersect with God in what Scripture seems to land within the syntax of a bi-directional final response.  Grace is – to all men – granted, offered, freely and also then – all men – freely and volitionally respond with that Free-Fall into Grace which we call Salvation or – instead –  with that volitional pushing-off, refusal of, said Free Fall.

The Legalists like to disguise this fact with something along the lines of, “….well over here it is something different than that Two-Way-Interface….” Unfortunately the Legalist must pit God against God in order to pull it off. God’s love perfectly coheres with that intersection: All-Men eventually come to that “juncture” which H & A & S came to and that one little fact is what the Legalists omit as they build up their whole misguided theology on H & A & S.  That “mere fact” (…that all men eventually come to that juncture…) ought not – ever – cause any theological attrition with respect to His unassailable Gospel of Grace.  Whenever such attrition is noted we can be sure that we are getting disoriented.

It’s not, after all, like a Man can somehow “….go on and on forever without ever running into God…..” Why? Because that would be nothing more than metaphysical nonsense.

“…the Angel of the Lord…..”

As we look at this particular vector recall again the larger Map of which this is a part as per:

PART 1: ETHICS, PHARAOH, EGYPT’S FIRST BORN, ENOCH, HARVEST, LOVE, & LOGICAL NECESSITY

We Are All Pharaoh – We Are All Enoch – We Are All Egypt’s First Born – at https://metachristianity.com/ethics-pharaoh-egypts-first-born-enoch-harvest-logical-necessity/

PART 2: ETHICS, ANANIAS, SAPPHIRA, HEROD, HARVEST, LOVE, & LOGICAL NECESSITY

We Are All Ananias – We Are All Sapphira – We Are All Herod – at https://metachristianity.com/ethics-ananias-sapphira-herod-harvest-love-logical-necessity

All-Men per Luke 12:20 when it comes to that business of “timing” of when any man finds himself at “that juncture” (before God), are entirely in God’s Hands (….as to “timing”….). Think it through – our lives vis-à-vis our very being are in His Hands and that “mere fact” that our own particular swath of time runs out in this life (eventually) isn’t some spoooooky & daarrrrrk mystery – as in – like – seriously – but all of that is, again, quite simpkle as it sums to a logical necessity vis-à-vis Contingent-Being / Necessary Being in the setting of what both Physics and Scripture tell us regarding the non-fundamental nature of Time – and so all such vectors are merely “Man before God”.

Jesus tells us the Angels of the Lord intersect all men and He tells us this of Angles repeatedly in His parables.  That is the “mechanism” whereby Man/God intersect. No man (no soul) just jumps out of his skin and pulls himself up to God (and so on).  The Legalist of course omits this fact from his entire misguided theology on H & A & S just so that he (the legalist) can say God kills Christians.  Thus far we have the Legalists omitting two key facts about reality – namely the following:

A. …the fact that All Men intersect God in that bi-directional final response – period –

B. …the fact that All Men are “harvested” (for better or worse) by the Angles of the Lord – period –

A Critical Nuance:

As noted briefly a few paragraphs up, there can be no attrition of Grace in our theology and therefore we find in our A – Z the following:

Grace vis-à-vis All-Sufficiency’s Own Self-Outpouring.  Therein all men inherit either the informed choice of “Thy-Grace” or the informed choice of “My-Resume’”. The mere fact that Time is Contingent and, therefore, ultimately runs out vis-à-vis Privation for all of us is not what actually makes that proverbial choice and that is why that mere fact is not what made the choices for H & A & S.  Not even close. Our own life-choice in and of that solitary, singular, and informed, Meta-Level choice between / amid Self / God is where Grace / All-Sufficiency is freely (and informed) refused or freely (and informed) entered into.

We say informed because the word “world” actually means “world” and thus we cannot fail a test for which we’ve never been prepared.  In First John 2 world means world and we discover (yet again) that the stuff of time and the stuff of circumstance (literally) cannot be ontological impasses to the reach of Grace’s Hand (….though that is a separate discussion…).  The Legalists will here invoke spooky twists to make clean words mean what they don’t.  Scripture has it that it is His Will that all men come to Him and that He reveals to the world in and by His Own peculiar modes (….world means world….) His Own peculiar News. Scripture also tells us that all men are free within volition’s landscape to chase after Grace’s resume’ or their own resume’ – and that cannot be otherwise as it is logically impossible for automatons to be found inside of Love’s House given the necessary landscape of Proposal (…which is different in both content and yield than Wedding…. wait for it…).

The Remainder Consists Of A Few Excerpts From A Brief Discussion:

The following is a reply in a few exchanges on this topic which had a few overlapping segues from other topics as well. The primary complaint from our Non-Theist friend (to which the following replies were addressed) was that there ought to be Possible Worlds in which the Contingent Being (…in our case such would be all things Adamic and so on….) can avoid that syntax of Means & Ends & Harvest & Interface with The Necessary Being such that the Contingency called Time and the Contingency of Body and Self and Privation (Etc.) were more akin to, say, the landscape of “Deism” wherein God just winds-up-the-remote-control-car and sets it loose, turns His back, and walks away, never to be seen again — and of course we can add ten thousand combinations / permutations of that complaint.  Several replies to that complaint are copy/pasted here with only minor edits and so the “you” & “I” and “we” and so on are for the most part still present. It will begin and end with “Begin Excerpts” / “End Excerpts” — and begins here:

Begin Excerpts:

As contingent beings we all come to our end and meet God (…the Necessary Being…) at what is a logically unavoidable interface. Given the term “GOD” / “Being Itself” your analysis seems to presuppose that it is logically possible that less than 100% of the contingent beings called “Humans” are harvested by God – as if that A. logically necessary and B. Necessarily Immaterial interface actualizing “before” the material body ceases to live instead of “after” the physical body ceases to live somehow changes the logical necessity of that interface.

But that’s impossible. Let’s just GRANT that A & H & S WERE directly and immediately harvested and let’s just GRANT that A & S & H WERE NOT directly and immediately harvested – so then? What does either one of those do with respect to the logical necessity of that Interface vis-à-vis the Contingency we call Time and the Contingent Self that is 100% me and you and any other Human Being? WHAT do you do with that 100%?

Also, there is this question:

Did God Take Them In Pain? The reply to that is looked at more closely in the other “Part” of this content, namely, “Part 1” which is We Are All Pharaoh – We Are All Enoch – We Are All Egypt’s First Born as per https://metachristianity.com/ethics-pharaoh-egypts-first-born-enoch-harvest-logical-necessity/  Also with respect to that same question of “Was There Pain?” see both a. “Wasn’t There Pain & Suffering In Egypt’s First Born?” as per https://metachristianity.com/wasnt-there-pain-suffering-in-egypts-first-born/ … and also b. “The Cursings” via The Psalms at https://metachristianity.com/the-cursings-via-the-psalms/

Further, I don’t see that your long list of conflations compel us to equate [A] the many sins of Christians across the centuries to [B] Scripture’s discussions of that same logically necessary and immaterial interface – nor to Scripture’s discussions of Man’s logically necessary and immaterial interfaces with “GOD” / “The Good”.

Thinking It Through: You say, “But They Thought God Killed A & S!” First of all – there’s not compelling evidence for that. Secondly – you seem to argue as if “…the fact of Peter believing that there are different people of Clean/Unclean status there in Acts….” means that such is the case according to Scripture’s terminus. But the God of the OT Who is the God of the NT confronted Peter on that, and so on.

Did you catch that? Perhaps “IF” Acts ended “THERE” with Peter’s notions you’d then have the (false) appearance of a point worth making. But you’ve only a kind of Half-Narrative.

Did you catch that? That is why we have to employ the Whole Metanarrative of Scripture as the Corrective Lens – and the same goes for Christians and their various misguided fears in the book of Acts. And let us be clear that if you mean to interact with the Christian Metaphysic then the proverbial Corrective Lens sums to vectors vis-à-vis the Cruciform Lens.

“If” they believed God killed A & S well then okay –  maybe, maybe not – but it’s irrelevant without THE REST of the Corrective Lens vis-à-vis the Cruciform Lens.  Just like witch hunts. Just like with Peter’s initial beliefs with respect to Clean/Unclean (…racism…). We’ve THE REST of that Corrective Lens vis-à-vis the Cruciform Lens to employ and we’ve the demands of both love and logic forced upon us by that very same Corrective Lens.

So we again arrive again at the problem of the 100% which you’ve expunged from your definitions. Of the 100% of contingent beings (…Man…) necessarily subsumed by, harvested by, God / God’s Angels / etc. in that Logically Necessary Traversal of Time’s Contingency you say that some vector in Scripture’s Metanarrative in all of that is logically impossible. Well WHICH case or cases vis-à-vis Humanity’s 100% is it exactly that your supposed logical impossibilities apply to in that Metanarrative? As in:

A — As contingent beings do we all find ourselves subsumed by, harvested by, the Necessary Being in what is a logically unavoidable interface?

B — Given the term “GOD” / “Being Itself” why does your analysis presuppose that it is logically possible that less than 100% of the contingent beings called “Humans” are subsumed by, harvested by, “Being Itself” / “GOD”?

C — Does Scripture foist Time and Physicality as the end of all definitions? Or instead is it the Cruciform love housed in the ceaseless and Self-Giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum? Is it Christ where the key to all definitions is found?

While I don’t agree with “everything” of G. Boyd, his Cruciform hermeneutic properly directs our reason towards reality’s irreducible substratum there in love’s timeless reciprocity amid those uncanny Trinitarian processions housed in “Being Itself” / “GOD”.

“There’s simply no reason to think the cruciform hermeneutic (reading Scripture through the lens of the cross) applies only to the Old Testament. If we truly believe the cross is the quintessential revelation of what God is *really* like, as I do, then the cross must serve as our interpretive lens *whenever* and *wherever* we see, or believe we see, God in action. Knowing that God’s true character looks like Jesus voluntarily dying on the cross for his enemies, we will always know that something else is going on if God appears to act in ways that are contrary to this enemy-loving, non-violent character.” (…by G. Boyd…)

D — Why does your premise seem to presuppose that “IF” that logically necessary and immaterial interface actualizes “before” the material body ceases to live instead of actualizing “after” the physical body ceases to live, that somehow that changes both the logical necessity of that interface and the Cruciform Lens through which all definitions emerge?

E — Of the 100% of contingent beings who traverse Time and Circumstance, which % is it exactly for whom said Time and said Circumstance is just all to much for the reach of something that is necessarily All Sufficient?

F — Of the 100% of contingent beings necessarily subsumed by, harvested by, God / God’s Angels / etc., which case(s) is it exactly that your logical impossibilities apply to?

G. You will need to justify why you re-invent Scripture’s Metanarrative in order to add A. vectors of Pain/Suffering to B. the whole-show of 100% of such Traversals/Harvests despite the following facts:

On Scripture’s definitions [A] wherever we find someone in the Old Testament (…Enoch, Egypt’s First Born, Etc….) or in the New Testament (…Rapture, Christ, Harvest, Etc…) any such individuals are obviously beneath/within the Decree of Non-Culpable or else Innocent or else a New Creation’s Redeemed and, also, [B] all such Traversals/Harvests necessarily entail (to make the obvious point) “Non-Metaphysical-Naturalism” when it comes to explanatory termini with respect to Means & Ends and thereby it’s obviously the case that all such cases are UN-Natural Traversals of Time’s Necessary Terminus such that any such Pain & Suffering is for obvious reasons NOT “in-play”.

End Excerpts.

For context the following is added and is from Divine Command Theory Collapses Into A Metaphysical Absurdity which is at https://metachristianity.com/divine-command-theory-collapses-into-a-metaphysical-absurdity/ 

Abraham & Isaac & Shortsighted Attempts To Justify Divine Command Theory:

a. Abraham, Faith, Divine Command Theory, & Basic Reading Comprehension at http://disq.us/p/1yh7bgt

b. Abraham, Isaac, and God’s Foreknowledge at http://disq.us/p/1yhjehw

c. Abraham, Isaac, Kierkegaard’s Paradox, Cyrus, & Isaiah 45:7 at http://disq.us/p/1yhjyrv

d. God Emotionally Tortured Abraham?? at http://disq.us/p/1yhkd08

God as Being Itself in fact is The-Good and thereby the Vectors/Agenda which stream from said Fountainhead define The Good. Oddly, our Non-Theist friends will often ask,

“Would you kill someone if your God told you to? I wouldn’t!”

Given the Christian Metaphysic the reply is (…from the Christian….) No-If-Christ and (…from the Non-Theist, from Psychology 101, from Anthropology 101….) Yes-If-That-Non-Theist (…true for any of us of course…) had been raised in Abraham’s conceptual milieu which was quite comfortable with Child Sacrifice – for  then given the eternally open-ended Normative Ethics (which is all Non-Theism has) it’s obvious that the Non-Theist (…in fact anyone…) if raised beneath that ceiling WOULD obey ANY “God” should that “God” have enough weight to draw his attention/devotion.

The REAL question is A. what is the Agenda of the Christian God and 2. why is it logically impossible that Abraham kills Isaac and 3. how is it possible that the Non-Theist misses the obvious answers.  For God to first Meet and then Stop Abraham in the middle of his own conceptual comfort with Child Sacrifice isn’t a difficult sub-narrative and yet our Non-Theist friends cannot grasp the obvious logical necessity that in all possibilities the child Isaac remains untouched. As discussed in the four links a, b, c, and d.

The Means To Proper Definitions:

With respect to the fundamental nature of reality the Christian metaphysic affirms that the “A” and the “Z” of reality carries the rational mind into an Ethic of irreducible and self-giving love through the Cruciform Lens – the corrective lens under review here (…the lens which to many have not addressed in any meaningful way…). In short, reality’s irreducible substratum sums to Timeless Reciprocity in and by those uncanny Trinitarian processions vis-à-vis Being Itself vis-à-vis GOD. As to the How/Why of that triune topography, see A Thoroughly Trinitarian Metaphysic — at https://metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/

 

—END—

The PSR doesn’t weigh reality. Reason via the Intentional Self/Mind weighs reality. The race to first principles can be mistaken for a race to the Principle of Sufficient Reason (the PSR) and/or for a race to epistemology. The Map under review here is that of the Ontologically Basic vis-à-vis Reason Itself vis-à-vis Being Itself.  Note that this discussion is comprised of two parts:

PART 1:  PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being” at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/

PART 2: PSR And The Necessary Conservation of The Ontic-Epistemic Singularity at https://metachristianity.com/psr-and-the-necessary-conservation-of-the-ontic-epistemic-singularity/

On occasion the race to first principles can be mistaken for a race to epistemology and/or for a race to the Principle of Sufficient Reason (the PSR). John S. Sylvest does not make that mistake of course, and in his, “How the Principle of Sufficient Reason bolsters Theism (and not)” which is at — https://paxamoretbonum.wordpress.com/2019/03/04/how-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-bolsters-theism-and-not/ — we we find helpful content. I agree with his analysis but I wanted to distinguish between zooming in on the PSR as opposed to zooming in on one’s terminus of explanation as they are obviously two different Hard-Stops. And so I replied with:

“….Perhaps but it isn’t the PSR weighing reality. It is Reason v. the Intentional Self/Mind. At times we aim our lens at vectors which cannot even in principle be a metaphysical terminus. It’s not that all termini but one will (necessarily) end up False. Rather, it’s that all termini but one will (necessarily) reduce to absurdity. There is only one Lucid, Non-Absurd, metaphysical terminus. We find that it isn’t the presence of a fallacy-free string of logic & premises & conclusions which *necessary *compels us to EMBRACE a particular Terminus. Whereas, what we *do* find is that we are *necessarily *compelled to REJECT Any/All Reductio….”

And, so, JSS displaying his typical patience with novices, replied with:

“…..Are you suggesting that epistemic justification requires first principles that are primitives, givens, presupposed, postulates, axioms & such that are non-deductive b/c they’re prior to deductive reasoning & conclusions. And that since a PSR is either a first principle or so closely derived from or related to same, for example, noncontradiction & causality (of things that come to be), while not subject to demonstration or formal argumentation, it, as well as its denial, is subject to refutation by reductio ad absurdum. And, finally, whatever its metaphysical implications for the structure of reality, it’s a self-critical assessment regarding the integrity of one’s mental self…..

And, so, in reply:

Well almost. But it’s not quite in-full there.

Brief Primer:

The category of the First Person Experience of i-am is irreducibly distinct from the category of “wet”. The category of “wet” is not akin to i-am in any lucid form unless one wishes to equate the fundamental nature of Rocks-Falling & Trees-Bending to the fundamental nature of i-am and, quite obviously, it is only the death of a thousand qualifications and ten thousand equivocations by which one attempts to convert such irreducibles & transcendentals & natures vis-a-vis trading on non-being in exchange for being (…end brief primer…).

Discussion:

1. Epistemic justification requires only Mom’s Voice if one is a toddler, and so on. That’s “enough” and is contingent, derived, finite. ANY-thing can fill that category of “Enough”. It’s all good. It all works.

2. The PSR is not a 1st Principle because it is not, and cannot even in principle be, one’s explanatory terminus. The reason that is true is because the PSR is not weighing reality just as the PSR is not Perceiving reality, just as the PSR is not do-*ing* the verb v. reason-*ing*. The PSR is not underived but is instead a derivative – it is an abstraction put forth by some sort of an i-am which/who actually “IS” (…depending on one’s terminus…) weigh-*ing* and see-*ing* and reason-*ing*.

3. Hence the PSR itself cannot lead one to God or to Reductio’.

4. Our own assessment of our own mental state is a trio, and it is three steps too far. One step less and we’re left with the duo of the PSR combined with our own mental state (with or without self-examination). That is still two steps too far as it houses the PSR in various weak or strong forms. One step less and we’ve only our own mental state, our own i-am. That is STILL one step too far as our own Mind is, even in full-on Idealism, contingent on pain of Circularity dancing with Solipsism and her many cousins. Hence none of what has preceded this point can provide one’s Terminus vis-à-vis one’s own i-am vas-a-vis that which is Necessary & Sufficient. And that holds for ANY i-am whether we speak of this or that Illusion or the Matrix or Brain/Vat or Boltzmann Brain or Idealism or Neuro-Physics-Inside-Skulls or Cartesian Demons or the 4D Block’s Embedded Conscious Observer. So far all of the above are not a Terminus but are Derivative – are a cul-de-sac (….of course the very notion of a metaphysical cul-de-sac is its own reductio ad absurdum but that’s a different topic…. sort of….).

5. One’s Explanatory Terminus cannot be identified unless and until one first TRAVERSES that Door, or that Seam, or that Edge, or that Line-Of-Stitching, or that Stratum/Stratum Interface/Amalgamation and exits ANY such i-am vis-à-vis ANY such cul-de-sac whether we speak of The Matrix or Brain/Vat or Boltzmann Brain or Idealism or Neuro-Physics-Inside-Skulls or Cartesian Demons or the 4D Block’s Embedded Conscious Observer.

Agrippa’s Dilemma vis-à-vis Münchhausen Trilemma begins and ends within metaphysical cul-de-sacs, but of course the very concept of any such “cul-de-sac” collapses into a metaphysical absurdity. With respect to number 4 and number 5 here in this list we find the syntax of various explanatory termini such as the contours of Illusion or the Matrix or Brain/Vat or Boltzmann Brain or Idealism or Neuro-Physics-Inside-Skulls or Cartesian Demons or the 4D Block’s Embedded Conscious Observer.  Therein we find that we arrive in a discussion of Metaphysical Cul-De-Sacs vis-à-vis Agrippa’s Dilemma vis-à-vis Münchhausen Trilemma and note that that is in part unpacked in the content of this (Part 1) but note also that it is in part unpacked in the content of PART 2: PSR And The Necessary Conservation of The Ontic-Epistemic Singularity — which is at https://metachristianity.com/psr-and-the-necessary-conservation-of-the-ontic-epistemic-singularity/

6. Said TRAVERSING is not the End though. Not yet.

7. For one must, then, KEEP ON REASONING/SEEING as one spies that which is Out-There and thereby discover one’s True End (and one’s True Beginning). One’s own i-am there (…as opposed to one’s own i-am-not / i-do-not-exist…) will discover only one of two possibilities (there is no third) which bring us to closure displacing circularity.

8. As one who is derivative and not underived we find that one’s own nature v. being v. self v. mind v. reason v. intentional-self v. intentional-mind v. i-am finds on the other side of said Edge or Seam or Interface (…again as one who is derivative…) the Underived in and of the Metaphysical Singularity that is (…or Who Is or which is…) one’s Terminus vis-à-vis one’s own i-am vas-a-vis that which is Necessary & Sufficient vis-à-vis [Reality v. Ontic A / Ontic Z]. That A/Z will PROVIDE only one of two logically possible accounts of the i-am vis-à-vis being-itself v. self v. mind v. reason v. intentional-self v. intentional-mind.

9. Short of that A/Z we are still within this or that derivative, this or that “metaphysical cul-de-sac” in that we are still talking about:

A. The fundamental nature of reality within said cul-de-sac

….as opposed to…..

B. The fundamental nature of the Larger, Wider, Singular Reality Outside of said cul-de-sac and which in fact fully-funds all that can even in principle “be” within the fundamental nature of reality of said cul-de-sac.

10. It is in traversing that “Seam” or that “Gateway” where the i-am must keep be-*ing* and see-*ing* and reason-*ing* as said i-am searches for lucidity. In fact ANY Contingent cul-de-sac / “In-Here” / “i-am” must, eventually, traverse that very SAME Gateway to that Larger, Wider Singularity that is Reality.

11A. There cannot be, on Non-Theism, that which is in fact “i-am” on BOTH sides of ANY such Interface v. this or that cul-de-sac such as, say, the Pocket-Of-Physics (neurobiology) “in-here” and the Ocean/Cosmos that is All-Physics “out-there”. ANY combination / permutation of [ “….the fundamental nature of….”] all stacked up and layered just-so finds this SAME necessity as non-being cannot trade on being – not even in-principle. Therein we find the driving force behind Harris and Carrol and Rosenberg and Churchland and so many more affirming syntax akin to various forms of “…the Self is illusion…. intention is illusion… the “intentional mind” is illusion…. mind itself is an illusion….”.

11B. Hence it is not that “free will” is “non-actual”. No. That would be easy. It is so much more than that. It is the whole show such that i-am is non-actual and this is in the end forced upon the Non-Theist given Metaphysical Naturalism’s Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature] wherein there cannot in fact be, on Non-Theism, that which is in fact “i-am” on BOTH sides of ANY such Interface (or whatever). The category of the First Person Experience of i-am is irreducibly distinct from the category of “wet”. The category of “wet” is not akin to i-am in any lucid form unless one wishes to equate the fundamental nature of Rocks-Falling & Trees-Bending to the fundamental nature of i-am and, quite obviously, it is only the death of a thousand qualifications and ten thousand equivocations by which one attempts to convert such irreducibles & transcendentals & natures vis-a-vis trading on non-being in exchange for being.

12. ANY Contingent cul-de-sac necessarily brings the feature of “convertibility” in that “traversal” of that “Seam” and it is there, in the convertibility of the necessary transcendentals vis-à-vis that hard necessity wherein non-being cannot trade on being. It is in said Traversal and on the Other Side where we will find the Necessary & Sufficient WRT one’s own i-am there (…as opposed to one’s own i-am-not / i-do-not-exist…) vis-à-vis being-itself v. self v. mind v. reason v. intentional-self v. intentional-mind terminating in ONE of only TWO possibilities:

13A. Such will be found trading non-being for being and thereby such will in fact trade-away the Necessary & Sufficient wrt Reason Itself v. the Intentional Mind/Self and that is true with any i-am that is found landing in that Ocean. There we End with Circularity Displacing Closure.

13B. Such will be found trading being for being as such relates to the Principle of Proportionate Causality (…see below…) and therein the Necessary & Sufficient wrt Reason Itself v. the Intentional Mind v. the Intentional Self and that is true regardless of the “degree” of “agency” v. the intentional mind in any i-am that is found landing in that Ocean. There we End with Closure Displacing Circularity.

ANY “contingent” terminus cannot self-account, and, just the same, ANY contingent terminus with respect to “love / self / giving” and with respect to “self / intend / mind” cannot self-account. As the Contingent Conscious Observer our own self-existence cannot provide its own terminus of explanation with respect to reality’s concrete furniture and therein any notion of “Fact” is, if left off there, illusory at first, and absurd in the end as the notion of non-being forces the reductio.

We are compelled there to Being Itself as Reason Itself as Mind Itself as Love Itself as Self-Giving Itself in the uncanny syntax of a Singularity.

So then, how is it that, say, Irreducible Intentionality or, say, Being Itself finds convertibility as it traverses FROM That Which It Irreducibly Is v. The-Underived over INTO that which is irreducible being as the derived / created / contingent being?

The Principle of Proportionate Causality:

On the metaphysics of the creative act how can the Created X traverse the abyss of non-being and cross over into being?

The “Created X” can in fact *be* (…it is actual…) and, also, unlike Pantheism, it can be actual and yet not be a “part” of God. That is perhaps not an observation on the ontological Trinity but on the metaphysics of the creative act. How then can any X find convertibility FROM Necessary Being / Pure Act INTO Non-Being INTO Created Being (…so to speak…)?

First: The Nature of Absolute Being:

On Trinity, or on the Infinite Consciousness that is the Divine Mind — in which [A] the Infinite Knower and [B] the Infinitely Known and [C] the Logos or All Processions Therein (…which is both of Infinite Consciousness and also is Infinite Consciousness…) we find that on logical necessity neither can be anything less than Being in totum even as we find that A is not B and B is not C and C is not A, and each is by necessity Being in totum.

The identity of Communicate transcends efficient and final causality for that which Is Caused does not exist before in Act, whereas that which Is Communicated exists before in Act. In the timeless deliberation in/of Infinite Consciousness vis-à-vis Being Itself there cannot be *less* than Totality of Proposition & Truth Predicate & All Possible X’s vis-à-vis Possibility in an Intentionality of Communique / Procession which is itself Pure Act and which is therefore in excess of all ontic possibility as – again – the express identity of Communicate transcends efficient and final causality for that which Is Caused does not exist before in Act, whereas that which Is Communicated exists before in Act.

In Absolute Being we come upon an unavoidably Trinitarian Metaphysic even as we come upon Closure Displacing Circularity (…. http://disq.us/p/1zfedy9 …) even as we come upon the Quad of Reason Itself as Being Itself as Wellspring as Terminus (….as per the link at the end of this comment…).

Second: The Nature of Logos In The Downhill Ontic

As Pure Act we find in Being Itself the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility. “That” is Absolute & Irreducible. So, any Creative Act arrives by Logos In Descent. Therefore, it is logically impossible that something is “more-actual” by virtue of being created. Hence our own Created Contingent Mind and the Created Contingent Ocean of Time in which we swim are necessarily indebted to Pure Actuality — to God — for all vectors whatsoever with respect to what we “are” and what said Ocean “is” vis-à-vis nothing less than lower-case being itself.

The peculiar descent & ascent of all possible syntax into/out-of Presentism and into/out-of Eternalism leave Metaphysical Naturalism in ruins – whereas – Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to Time & Timelessness. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the First Adam. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the Last Adam. To attempt the claim of, “Pure Act Becomes” entails an Uphill Ontic with respect to Pure Act (…which is a metaphysical absurdity…). Pure Act in the Downhill Ontic reveals – Communicates – all ontic possibility. There is an unavoidable sense in which [Logos v. Divine Simplicity] is by logical necessity GREATER than [Logos v. Time & Temporal Becoming] just as within that same [Logos v. Time & Temporal Becoming] we find Logos as Son being made perfect.

With respect to Logos in Ontic Descent see the following two:

a. The Absolute’s Reference Frame, Pure Act, Incarnation, Time, The Truly Human, And The Last Adam – at https://metachristianity.com/absolute-reference-frame-pure-act-incarnation-time/

b. Being’s Superseding Ontic Over Both Material And Non-Being – at https://metachristianity.com/beings-superseding-ontic-over-both-material-and-non-being/

Third: The Creative Act:

On the metaphysics of the creative act, all of that brings us to the principle of proportionate causality. How can the Created X traverse the abyss of non-being and cross over into being?

Quote:

“…..To be a tree or to be a stone is merely to participate in “treeness” or “stoneness.” But to be at all — which is the characteristic effect of an act of creation out of nothing – is to participate in Being Itself. Now the principle of proportionate causality tells us that whatever is in an effect must be in some way in its cause. And only that which just *is* Being Itself can, in this case, be a cause proportionate to the effect, since the effect is not merely to be a tree or to be a stone, but to be at all. [Only] pure actuality or Being Itself rather than a being among others – can cause a thing to exist ex nihilo…..“ (E. Feser https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/first-without-second.html )

End quote.

It is an obvious feature that regardless of the nature (so to speak) we are unpacking, ANY “….fundamental nature of X….” which is within ANY cul-de-sac is necessarily indebted for all that it Can or Does or Did or May-Again-Tomorrow have or house or be and, also, additionally, that indebtedness Begins & Ends with the “….fundamental nature of X….” (whichever one wishes to land in) which is in fact the proverbial Totality or Ocean Outside (so to speak) of the cul-de-sac under review.

At times we aim our lens at vectors which cannot even in principle be a metaphysical terminus, such as at the PSR “itself” — as if THAT is the Metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility – or one’s explanatory terminus. No. It’s not there. It is simply not the case that all termini but one will (necessarily) end up False v. “Reality” v. “Metaphysical Singularity” v. what D.B. Hart terms “….the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility….”.

Rather, it is simply the case that all termini but one will (necessarily) reduce to absurdity. There is only one Lucid, Non-Absurd, metaphysical terminus with respect to ANY i-am and we find – it’s uncanny – as if God has made Himself easy to find – that it is not the presence of this or that fallacy-free string of logic & premises & conclusions which necessarily compels us to EMBRACE a particular Terminus as many such proverbial STRINGS can be identified.

Whereas, what we DO find is that we are in fact necessarily compelled to reject any and all reductio ad absurdum BECAUSE ANY of us little i-am-s are free to value ANY-thing which one can rationally justify and that includes trading away one’s very own i-am vis-à-vis Reason Itself v. the Intentional Mind v the Intentional Self for ANY other End or ANY other Terminus as one must only rationally Justify that free and informed choice – even as – it’s uncanny – as if God has made Himself easy to find – one cannot even in principle rationally justify ANY such free and informed choice.

Strings of Logic can be of all sorts of lengths and parts and so logical lucidity ALONE is not enough to FORCE one’s hand. However, there is only One Whole, One Totality, One Terminus which subsumes all such Strings and all such Parts and it is THAT Singular Terminus which FORCES one to Knowingly Choose between A. Totality Therein or else B. Absurdity.

Infused into the Consciousness of Mankind across eons of history is the indestructible and timeless image of The Great I-AM.

A Quibble On Closure vs. Circularity:

When it comes to the nature of Circularity vs. Closure we find those two often muddied up when speaking of either A. Irreducible & Absolute Reciprocity vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life vis-à-vis Moral Facts and/or B. Irreducible and Absolute Mind vis-à-vis Infinite Consciousness vis-à-vis Pure Act. When some of our Non-Theist friends begin to talk about the fundamental nature of Mind vis-à-vis Logic/Reason their syntax invariably lands in the following:

A. 4D Block Universe: Mind’s terminus = Self = Illusion vis-à-vis reality’s concrete (fundamental / irreducible) furniture = Non-Distinction.

B. Presentism: Mind = Physics = Rock-Falling = Tree-Bending = Hand-Waving = Fan-Waving = Self I-Am-ing = Reason-ing = Non-Distinction.

The Form of the Challenge which our Non-Theist friends present with respect to the fundamental nature of Logic typically shows up along the following lines:

A. “….If Logic ends in God then God must be subject to Logic and so God is not God, or else God is metaphysically free to be Non-Logic and therefore able to make round-squares such that [A = Non-A] is true in some possible world….or something like that….”

B. That which is “Logic Itself” is either 1. itself under the Laws of Logic or else 2. It (logic) can be, or is metaphysically free to be, Non-Logic.

The problem with that approach in [A] and [B] whether it’s attempted with *Logic or *Being-Itself or *The-Good or *Reason-Itself, or “Mind” and so on is as follows:

Obviously both A & B employ the syntax of the following:

a. Logic Itself is subject to Logic-Itself and/or
b. Logic-Itself is beneath Logic-Itself and/or
c. Logic-Is-Metaphysically-Free-To-Be-Non-Logic — or else Logic is not Logic.

Obviously A, B, and C employ the following syntax:

a. “X Is Subject To X” akin to
b. “X Is Beneath X” akin to
c. “Being Itself Is Subject To Being Itself” akin to
d. “X Is Metaphysically Free To Be Non-X” akin to
e. “Being Itself Is Metaphysically Free To Be Non-Being”

Unfortunately, with respect to all such syntax it is the case that:

1. None of them have anything to do with the Christian Metaphysic.
2. All of them are themselves reductions to absurdity — of the form “A”itself is lower than, subject to, beneath, “A” itself.

1 + 2 there begins to reveal yet another map by which in fact the only lucidity available arrives within the contours of Divine Simplicity whereupon (…for example…) we are compelled into the lucidity of Being Itself as Reason Itself as Mind Itself as Love Itself as Self-Giving Itself in the uncanny syntax of a Singularity.

Segue:

The First-Person I-AM And The Visibility of Intentionality

We know Physics is not appropriate. But that said, when it comes to Intentionality there was http://disq.us/p/1mj0his

Yet it still seems like you are still claiming that the fundamental nature of Fan-Waving is distinct from the fundamental nature of Hand-Waving. It also seems that you are employing terms which work off of the premise that if we could just remove physics from the discussion then Non-Theism would have the wherewithal to claim that one of those cul-de-sacs in fact houses a fundamental nature v. intentionality that is not entirely indebted to the fundamental nature of the Larger Ocean Outside of it, as if it could be immune to and distinct from said Larger Ocean, such that Non-Theism could assert that we’ve a true metaphysical cul-de-sac on our hands. Which of course is a logical absurdity.

We are compelled into the lucidity of Being Itself as Reason Itself as Mind Itself as Love Itself as Self-Giving Itself in the uncanny syntax of a Singularity.

In Absolute Being we come upon an unavoidably Trinitarian Metaphysic even as we come upon Closure Displacing Circularity (…. http://disq.us/p/1zfedy9 …) even as we come upon the Quad of Reason Itself as Being Itself as Wellspring as Terminus (….as per the link at the end of this comment…).

Before closing, recall that in the Christian Metaphysic we find that Being Itself and Reason Itself and Self-Giving Love Itself and Mind Itself — and so on constitute said paradigm’s proverbial A—Z and in fact Begin and End all syntax as the Metaphysical Wellspring of all ontological possibility is in fact GOD as per the Divine Mind as per Infinite Consciousness as per Being Itself as per…. and so on. So, given that topography, we can trade out the term “Moral Facts” which is what the following excerpt is about (…it is from a discussion about Moral Facts…) and insert in its place the term Reason or Reason Itself and, thereby, perhaps add a few more modes by which to zero in on the target of this discussion.

So, with that qualification (…replacing the theme of Moral Facts with the theme of Reason Itself…) and with the note that it will begin and end with “Begin Excerpt / End Excerpt” to avoid confusion —here is the excerpt:

Begin Excerpt:

Reason’s Ontology & the Ontology of Sentience & Moral Ontology with respect to Moral Facts & the Ontological Continuity of Abstractions:

Non-Theism cannot follow / trace its own brands of “the ontology of sentience” from reality’s concrete furniture all the way up to mind-dependent abstractions. But then that lack of continuity is not an “ontology” if it hasn’t the Means/Ends vis-à-vis [Sentience] (…or Moral Facts for obvious reasons…) to offer anything through & through. But that the Non-Theist means that to go about his Ontology of Sentience (…or Moral Ontology…) while excluding the wider Map of Physics forces us to ask: How?  Typically there is a kind of anti-scientific move by our Non-Theist friends as they go about claiming that Abstractions and/or Moral Facts cannot be reduced to Physics – that there is some other “category” which is not itself entirely subsumed by, defined by, the far wider Map we call physics. That typically lands in a cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac is supposed to have its own “ontology” which is (somehow) insulated from and immune to the “ontology” of reality outside of said cul-de-sac.  And said cul-de-sac is (typically) within the cerebral cortex of sentient creatures.  Now, that “walling-off” or “slicing-out” of that proverbial “cerebral cortex” and arbitrarily treating “it” as if “it” has “its” own “fundamental nature” is entirely one grand ball of circularity neatly & arbitrarily isolated from the Non-Theist’s own paradigm and its fundamental & irreducible rock-bottom.

The belief in play there with respect to Sentience v. Self v. Intentionality v. Self-Giving v. Love v. Moral Facts is a strange form of circular-talk which claims that Moral Ontology can somehow “happen” in a vacuum void of Physics – as if on Non-Theism the Map of our own body of emotions and neurons is not ITSELF entirely subsumed by and defined by that far wider Map (Physics).

That yields an entirely self-referencing set of premises when making all of those arbitrary cuts which of course begs the question on what is good, how it is good, and why it is good, and in fact what “good” in fact “is” vis-à-vis this or that irreducible-hard-stop. And it is that last point there, the “is” and the “irreducible” and the “hard-stop” which forces our Non-Theist friends to insist on that cul-de-sac – for without those arbitrary walls one finds one’s very Self and therein Love Itself giving way to – not the hard-stop of the cul-de-sac’s walls – but instead the fundamental nature of the Wider Ocean v. Reality outside of the cul-de-sac in which and by which we find all that the cul-de-sac is, has, or even can be vis-à-vis any syntax of any category of “fundamental nature”.

When we describe “the ontology of trees” that is a narrative of (some phrase it this way) “the history of the becoming” wrt trees, or some phrase it “the history of the Tree’s becoming” and the word “becoming” is key as it tells us that the essence of and fundamental reality of “Tree” is not something irreducible and timeless but instead suffers from non-being at some point in the history of “reality” (….the universe on Non-Theism…) and then “becomes” (…or we can say “becomes real”…) and eventually fades again into non-being (….trees emerged and so are not irreducible and timeless…). The Ontology Of Trees is NOT “…what we find right here inside of the living experience of trees…“.

IF that is all one has then one does NOT have anything that is actually Ontological but instead one has an entirely self-referencing and circular map. And circular Maps cannot tell us anything about the fundamental essence of Trees as we’ve no contextual sight, no ontology, no physics, and we may actually believe that what causes Water to go to the leaves is something other than [Gravity, Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces, and Electromagnetic Forces] – believing perhaps in something like “Better/Worse” vis-à-vis “Flourishing” and so on.

Recall that the only reason the Non-Theist avoids Physics is to avoid loosing the hard-stop of the wall of his artificial cul-de-sac, because without that wall then love itself does not find that irreducible hard stop but finds instead the Irreducible Indifference vis-à-vis the Fundamental Nature of the Ocean Outside which we referent as “Reality” (….Cosmos, QM, whatever….).

Well with Moral Facts the same narrative applies as in fact what causes Water to go into leaves has nothing within it of Better/Worse and how do we know those facts? We know those facts from the ontological history of trees and NOT by self-referencing slices of Tree against Tree via the circularity of “life-good-death-bad” or of “better/worse” or of “flourish”.

With Moral Facts the same narrative applies with respect to essence and content and the fundamental nature of ANY vector. The reason the growing pool of Non-Theists claim there are NOT any vectors which sum to Objective Moral Facts is b/c of a Nominalism grounded in Non-Theism’s only available Map of Moral Ontology.

End Excerpt.

Closing Context:

Anti-Realism and Truth – https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P240/anti-realism-and-truth

Fallacies Physicists Fall For – https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/07/fallacies-physicists-fall-for.html

Propositional Truth – Who Needs It? – https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-aseity/propositional-truth-who-needs-it/

Absolute creationism and divine conceptualism – https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-aseity/absolute-creationism-and-divine-conceptualism-a-call-for-conceptual-clarity/

God and Abstract Objects – https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/god-and-abstract-objects/

Freedom, Illusion, Emergence, & Necessity – at http://disq.us/p/1w4ue31

Sean Carroll, Downward Causation, Churchland, Rosenberg, E. Feser, Mad-Dogs, Kripke, Ross, Freedom, & the Mind/Self – at http://disq.us/p/1zyhrnw

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF NATURAL NECESSITY — by David Oderberg — a chapter in “Ontology, Modality, and Mind” (Edited by Carruth, Gibb, and Heil) at https://www.amazon.com/Ontology-Modality-Mind-Themes-Metaphysics-ebook/dp/B07J128YN4/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1 and also at https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ontology-modality-and-mind-9780198796299?cc=us&lang=en&

Closure Displacing Circularity – at http://disq.us/p/1zfedy9

Reason Itself: The Parasite Upon Irrational Physical Events & The Colony of Memes In the Ecology of Cerebral Cortices – at http://disq.us/p/1z5cvf9

The Fallacy of Presupposition – The Necessary & Sufficient void of Presupposition – part a. at http://disq.us/p/205svk9 and part b. at http://disq.us/p/205a6i1 and part c. at http://disq.us/p/205c53m and part d. at http://disq.us/p/205slys

What Does It Mean To Say Proofs Of God? – at http://disq.us/p/1w3dmo7

PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being (this comment) – at http://disq.us/p/208ss3a

The Quad of….

Reason Itself as Being Itself
Wellspring as Terminus
Closure Displacing Circularity
Reductio ad Deum Displacing Reductio ad Absurdum 

….via the content in the following links:

a. http://disq.us/p/20dfp9t
b. http://disq.us/p/20ax8h7
c. http://disq.us/p/20b83c4
d. http://disq.us/p/20bjkwl
e. http://disq.us/p/20bqdih
f. http://disq.us/p/20cjajj
g. http://disq.us/p/20cxuzh

PART 1:  PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being” at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/

PART 2: PSR And The Necessary Conservation of The Ontic-Epistemic Singularity at https://metachristianity.com/psr-and-the-necessary-conservation-of-the-ontic-epistemic-singularity/

END

It is valuable to chase after Reason and Love rather than God “per-se” and find whatever may come our way vis-à-vis the Ontologically Basic vis-à-vis Reason Itself vis-à-vis Being Itself.  Note that this discussion is comprised of two parts:

PART 1:  PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being” at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/

PART 2: PSR And The Necessary Conservation of The Ontic-Epistemic Singularity at https://metachristianity.com/psr-and-the-necessary-conservation-of-the-ontic-epistemic-singularity/

We observe that it is often quite valuable to chase after Reason and Love rather than God “per-se” and find whatever may come our way. And it is reasonable, in these sorts of formats, to press our own and other’s premises at their ends or margins. On occasion the race to first principles can be mistaken for a race to epistemology and/or for a race to the Principle of Sufficient Reason (the PSR). That is why we can say something quite bold here:

The epistemology or the how-we-know with respect to the First Person Experience of i-am is a non-question.

It cannot be answered unless and until one presses one’s own i-am to whatever end or terminus one wishes. It is often said that the Christian moves from Scripture and Presupposition outward into the world of Trees and Rocks and Cosmos. That statement obviously ignores Natural Theology but it also ignores Logic & Love, or we can say Reason & Reciprocity as such contours, like Cosmos, lead one to only two possible termini (…see PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being” at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/ …).

Some allude to the perfection of being v. belief and behavior and more. In the end such is Unity, or Singularity, as the perfection of love necessarily entails the perfection of reason, which itself necessarily entails the perfection of consciousness, which is the perfection of being. That is the elephant in the room which all epistemology avoids and another way to say it is this:

Metaphysical Naturalism houses the Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].

All epistemology ends in a race outward in a mass-exit out of one’s mind.

Literally.

Hence epistemology with respect to i-am is fine in theory, and even fun, but it has no full-on reply or answer until one presses outward to one’s terminus.

At some point the Non-Theist’s claim that his own paradigm’s Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature] is both Necessary and Rational must be faced on Non-Theism’s own terms. If our Non-Theist friends are at bottom reading the Map correctly, well then Reductio v. “i-am-non-being” in all vectors. The attempt to trade on non-being in exchange for being vis-à-vis Intentionality vis-à-vis Mind is an attempt which collapses to absurdity.

There are times when it is valuable with respect to light to take S. Harris and Rosenberg and S. Carroll and so on at Non-Theism’s proverbial word and GRANT them their “….illusory mind….” vis-à-vis GRANTING them that pesky but Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].

Lens Zoomed In vs. Lens Zoomed Out

The analytic of various lenses is far more nuanced and begins at “A” and then methodically makes its way to “Z”, whereas, the lens here is by design different and picks up the Map somewhere around “XWYZ” vis-à-vis the Explanatory End or the Explanatory Terminus of the only two possibilities found in the traversal of all possible worlds:

Non-Theism: The Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].

Theism: The Necessary Conservation of [The-Great-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].

For example, JSS had quoted another:

“….There is nothing simpler to think I am, I exist, this blade of grass exists; this gesture of the hand, this captivating smile that the next instant will hurry away, exists…the world exists…”

While that is true, it is far more than our “XWYZ” and as such fits nicely in that Lens Zoomed Out or that more robust “A Through Z” treatment of the Epistemic/Ontic singularity. Whereas, should we shift our lens to that of the Explanatory End or the Explanatory Terminus of the only two possibilities found in the traversal of all possible worlds we would say something like this:

“Well hold on now. This blade of grass exists? That may or may not be true. And we cannot know if it is Ontic or True unless or until we break open what came before it, namely that bit about “…nothing simpler to think that I am…”……”

At that point then we pick up the thread with items like PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/

Another example of what all of that “looks like” in this proverbial race to the End of All Possible Worlds comes in two parts. The first part is a quote of E. Feser:

“The universe, however physics and scientific cosmology end up describing it –  even if it turned out to be a universe without a temporal beginning, even if it is a four-dimensional block universe, even if Hawking’s closed universe model turned out to be correct, even if we should really think in terms of a multiverse rather than a single universe – will, the Aristotelian argues, necessarily exhibit just these features (potentialities needing actualization, composition, contingency, etc.). And thus it will, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, require a cause outside it. And only that which is pure actuality devoid of potentiality, only what is utterly simple or non-composite, only something whose essence or nature just is existence itself, only what is therefore in no way contingent but utterly necessary – only that, the classical theist maintains, could in principle be the ultimate terminus of explanation, whatever the specific scientific details turn out to be.” (E. Feser) (…from http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/carroll-on-laws-and-causation.html …)

The second part is the observation that regarding the topic at hand vis-à-vis the landscape of all things i-am in and around and beyond all things Adamic and/or Edenic and so on in all vectors, our ultimate terminus of explanation, whatever the specific scientific details turn out to be, finds only two options in a universe such as ours and in fact in all possible universes/realities:

Option A: It is a Universe void of inherent intentionality, it is a Universe void of inherent design, it is a Universe void of final causes, it is a Universe soaked through in all vectors with the Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature] up and down all ontic-lines (and therefore all final epistemic lines).

Option B: It is a Universe constituted of, soaked through with, Cosmic Intentionality even as it is a Universe soaked through with Final Causes, even as it is a Universe soaked through with the Necessary Conservation of [The-Great-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature] up and down all ontic-lines (and therefore all final epistemic lines).

Option A just is Non-Theism and in all Possible Worlds reveals a Totality of deflationary truth value vis-à-vis all Syntax for therein our sightline does not reach a Horizon of the Unknown “past the end of the Known” (so to speak) but rather therein it is the case that there is No Horizon for there is No Sightline for there is No Sight for there is no i-am for there is [No-I-AM] even as there is in all vectors the Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].

Option B just is Theism and in all Possible Worlds reveals a Totality of In-Principle truth value vis-à-vis all Syntax for therein our sightline does not shatter in an Abyss of Non-Theism’s Reductio but instead it arrives at the syntax of Negative-Theology vis-à-vis a Horizon of the Unknown “past the end of the Known” (so to speak) as it lands in what is in all vectors an actual/ontic Sightline even as there is in all vectors Sight even as there is in all vectors the i-am even as there is in all vectors the Necessary Conservation of [The-Great-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].

The Ontologically Basic vis-à-vis Reason Itself vis-à-vis Being Itself

1— We have the following syntax: Think. Reason. Weigh. Do. Decide. Choose. Think-through. Reason-through. Weigh/Do.

2— We have the following syntax: “…..You can do what you decide to do — but you cannot decide what you will decide to do….” — and — “….A puppet is free as long as he loves his strings…..” (S. Harris)

3— We add 1 + 2 and we arrive at the following syntax: You can reason as you choose to reason — but you cannot choose to reason what you will reason — you cannot reason to choose. You can think as you choose to think — but you cannot choose to think what you will think — you cannot think to choose. You can do what you decide to do, but you cannot decide what you will decide to do.

We add 1 + 2 + 3 and we arrive at the following:

Metaphysical Cul-De-Sacs vis-à-vis Agrippa’s Dilemma vis-à-vis Münchhausen Trilemma

With respect to the Metaphysical Cul-De-Sacs described in “PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being” at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/  where the Agrippa Dilemma (…Münchhausen trilemma…) falls down is 1. in driving an unsupported wedge between Reducible Mind and Irreducible Mind (Epistemic vs. Metaphysic) which sums to “If Not Infinite Knowledge Then Redutio In The End” and 2. assuming a falsehood, namely that the PSR counts for anything at all and 3. that the fundamental nature of this or that or ANY terminus of the cul-de-sac is immune to the fundamental nature of the reality outside of said cul-de-sac.

Simply put, it isn’t the PSR weighing reality. It is Reason v. the Intentional Self/Mind. At times we aim our lens at vectors which cannot even in principle be a metaphysical terminus (like the PSR). It’s not that all termini but one will (necessarily) end up False. Rather, it’s that all termini but one will (necessarily) reduce to absurdity. There is only one Lucid, Non-Absurd, metaphysical terminus. We find that it is NOT the presence of a fallacy-free string of logic & premises & conclusions which necessary compels us to EMBRACE a particular Terminus. Whereas, what we DO find is that we ARE necessarily compelled to REJECT Any/All Circularity, Contradiction, Brute Fact, and/or Reductio.

Reason Itself v. the Intentional Mind/Self is there found full-on Alive and Living, Purely Active, and the only terminus one seems to find at first glance is Idealism. But of course Idealism too is unmasked as being herself guilty of falling down in all three areas introduced at the start. She is 1. driving an unsupported wedge between Reducible Mind and Irreducible Mind (Epistemic vs. Metaphysic) which sums to “If Not Infinite Knowledge Then Redutio In The End” even as she is 2. assuming a falsehood, namely that the PSR counts for anything at all even as she is 3. stopping in her own contingent non-god-self and thereby assuming that the fundamental nature the cul-de-sac that is her own non-god-self is immune to the fundamental nature of the reality outside of that same cul-de-sac or worse that there is no evidence of any such Outside as that claim then suffers the pains of Circularity, Contradiction, Reductio, and/or Brute Fact.

Mind vis-à-vis Abstraction will have her say and Mind vis-à-vis Abstraction carries us to the following with respect to Being Itself as Reason Itself: It is NOT the presence of a fallacy-free string of logic & premises & conclusions which necessary compels us to EMBRACE a particular Terminus. Whereas, what we DO find is that we ARE necessarily compelled to REJECT Any/All Circularity, Contradiction, Brute Fact, and/or Reductio.

But then that simply carries us to Logic & Being & Mind & Actuality and so on and one is left either with what one will call Nonsense or with what one will call Important Nonsense (…see Blanshard, Brand. Reason and Analysis…) or with what one will in the end vis-à-vis convergence describe as Theism vis-à-vis Irreducible Being vis-à-vis Irreducible Reason vis-à-vis Irreducible Mind vis-a-vis the simplicity of lucidity.

“….Anything that has arbitrary limits (…in power, value, number of vertices, etc…) has an explanation. A thing that has no arbitrary limits is required to explain the plurality of things that have arbitrary limits. Thus, something exists that has no arbitrary limits. This thing is God….” (Cameron Bertuzzi)

Simultaneously retaining logical seamlessness while avoiding logical contradiction compels us, forces us — else absurdity — into nothing less than Pure Actuality v. Being, Consciousness, & Bliss. David Hart’s book “The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, & Bliss” has relevant overlap. What does it mean to say Proofs of God? From https://strangenotions.com/ama-dr-feser-answers/ is the following:

Begin Excerpts:

“….More importantly, we can defend them by the method of retorsion, which involves showing that one cannot deny them on pain of self-contradiction or incoherence.

This method is sometimes misunderstood. Some people think it merely involves showing that we can’t help thinking a certain way, but where this leaves it open that this way of thinking might nevertheless not correspond to reality. In other words, they think that retorsion arguments are essentially about human psychology. That is not at all the case. Rightly understood, such arguments are a species of reductio ad absurdum argument. They involve defending a claim by showing that the denial of the claim entails a contradiction, and thus cannot as a matter of objective fact (and not merely as a contingent matter of human psychology) be correct…..

….The word “proof” has, historically, been used in different senses. Naturally, I don’t mean that the arguments are proofs in exactly the same sense in which a mathematical proof is a “proof.” They are mostly not a priori arguments, for one thing. But I used the word deliberately, and I certainly claim a high degree of certainty for the claim that God exists. For example, I would claim that it is as certain that God exists as it is that the world external to our minds is real and not an illusion foisted upon us by a Cartesian demon or the Matrix.

How can I say that? Well, the point of the book to show this. The arguments are “proofs” in that, first of all, the conclusion is claimed to follow deductively from the premises. They are not mere probabilistic inferences, arguments to the best explanation, or “God of the gaps” arguments. (I hate “God of the gaps” arguments.) The claim is that the arguments show, not merely that God is the most likely explanation of the facts asserted in the premises of the arguments, but rather that God is the only possible explanation in principle of those facts.

Second, the premises are knowable with certainty. The premises include both empirical premises (for example, the premise that change occurs) and philosophical premises (for example, the premise that everything has an explanation or is intelligible). The premises in turn can be defended in various ways that show them to be beyond reasonable doubt. For example, some of them can be defended via retorsion arguments (which, again, are a species of reductio ad absurdum argument). That is to say, such arguments try to show that anyone who denies such-and-such a claim is implicitly contradicting himself.

So in arguments of the sort I am defending, the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises, and the premises are claimed to be knowable beyond any reasonable doubt. That sort of argument fits one traditional use of the word “proof.”

Naturally, I am aware that some people will nevertheless challenge the arguments or remain doubtful about one or more of them. But that’s true of every single argument one could give for any conclusion, even mathematical proofs. A determined and clever enough skeptic will always be able to come up with some grounds for doubt, even if the grounds are bizarre or far-fetched. That doesn’t mean that the grounds are, all things considered, going to be reasonable ones.

Anyway, my calling something a “proof” doesn’t entail that I think every reader, even every fair-minded reader, is immediately going to be convinced. What it is meant to indicate is the nature of the connection between the facts described in the premises and the fact described in the conclusion. It is a metaphysical claim, not a sociological claim. Too many people mix these things up. They think that as long as a significant number of people are likely not to agree with some argument, you can’t call it a “proof.” That just misunderstands the way the term is being used….”

End Excerpts.

The Divine Mind is indeed the proverbial “A” & “Z” as Divine Simplicity finds Being Itself as Reason Itself, not as-if Reason, and Being Itself as Will–Itself, not as-if Will, and Being-Itself as Mind-Itself, not as-if Mind, and Being Itself as The-Good Itself, not as-if The-Good, and Reason as Mind as Self as nothing less than the I-AM — and not as-if-i-am.

Justification avoids Contradiction, Brute Fact, Circularity, and Reductio — Unless God is Evil — or unless Nonsense — or unless Important Nonsense — or unless Useful-But-Not-True-Nonsense — or unless the First Person Experience of Reason vis-à-vis the Intentional Self/“I” vis-à-vis “i-am” is in fact at bottom illusion — or unless…. And so on as per voices widely embraced within Non-Theistic circles – such as, say, Harris and Carroll and Rosenberg and Churchland.

With respect to said illusion one finds affirmation there from such widely published voices in Non-Theistic circles and if one agrees with them, then okay — the entire first person experience is illusion vis-à-vis the syntax of “i-am”. One is then left with the need to demonstrate for us how far that gets one without circularity, contradiction, brute fact, reductio, and so on.  It seems of course that Non-Theism won’t demonstrate that because it can’t. One’s only hope is to bad mouth reason itself and insist that ALL roads lead to the same conclusion. But then to bad mouth reason itself just so that one can claim that the resulting “Equal Equity” is somehow “enough” of a Currency with which to get out of the proverbial gate and into the proverbial Ocean is a move that just won’t do – for obvious reasons given the topic at hand.

In the same way if our Non-Theist friends disagree with them, then okay — but then how and why? Will one there avoid the same Ends vis-à-vis Reductio? Again it seems that one’s Non-Theism won’t avoid it because it can’t. What Non-Theism CAN do is what it HAS done which is to claim we’re all — Theist & Non-Theist — in that SAME ultimate position vis-à-vis Reason Itself vis-à-vis I-AM.

Follow Reason outward — and outward again — as such allows us to pull into the fabric the stuff of each step until we reach “That Ultimately Self-Explanatory Terminus” as it were for as we just saw whatever is coherent can neither begin nor end within any contingent terminus and therein Insanity Itself as The Necessary Being is nothing more than a Reductio wrapped up within a Façade of Important-Nonsense.

Avoiding Reductio & Contradiction forever chips away at Every-Thing until one is compelled to embrace the positively lucid and there what was seemingly only so many No’s becomes now so many Yes’s, as per proofs vis-a-vis retorsion.

Here again the syntax of the Divine Mind presses in as the only rational terminus, the only rational “A” & “Z”. Divine Simplicity there finds Being Itself as Reason Itself, not as-if Reason, and Being Itself as Will–Itself, not as-if Will, and Being-Itself as Mind-Itself, not as-if Mind, and Being Itself as The-Good Itself, not as-if The-Good, and Reason as… well as what…? Well not as-if-i-am but, instead, we find Reason as Mind as Self as The Great I-AM.

—END—

Added Context:

Freedom, Illusion, Emergence, & Necessity – at http://disq.us/p/1w4ue31

Sean Carroll, Downward Causation, Churchland, Rosenberg, E. Feser, Mad-Dogs, Kripke, Ross, Freedom, & the Mind/Self – at http://disq.us/p/1zyhrnw

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF NATURAL NECESSITY — by David Oderberg — a chapter in “Ontology, Modality, and Mind” (Edited by Carruth, Gibb, and Heil) at https://www.amazon.com/Ontology-Modality-Mind-Themes-Metaphysics-ebook/dp/B07J128YN4/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1 and also at https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ontology-modality-and-mind-9780198796299?cc=us&lang=en&

Closure Displacing Circularity – at http://disq.us/p/1zfedy9

Reason Itself: The Parasite Upon Irrational Physical Events & The Colony of Memes In the Ecology of Cerebral Cortices – at http://disq.us/p/1z5cvf9

The Fallacy of Presupposition – The Necessary & Sufficient void of Presupposition – part a. at http://disq.us/p/205svk9 and part b. at http://disq.us/p/205a6i1 and part c. at http://disq.us/p/205c53m and part d. at http://disq.us/p/205slys

What Does It Mean To Say Proofs Of God? – at http://disq.us/p/1w3dmo7

PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being (this comment) – at http://disq.us/p/208ss3a

The Quad of….

Reason Itself as Being Itself
Wellspring as Terminus
Closure Displacing Circularity
Reductio ad Absurdum

….via the content in the following links:

a. http://disq.us/p/20dfp9t
b. http://disq.us/p/20ax8h7
c. http://disq.us/p/20b83c4
d. http://disq.us/p/20bjkwl
e. http://disq.us/p/20bqdih
f. http://disq.us/p/20cjajj
g. http://disq.us/p/20cxuzh

PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being – at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/

PSR And The Necessary Conservation of The Ontic-Epistemic Singularity – at https://metachristianity.com/psr-and-the-necessary-conservation-of-the-ontic-epistemic-singularity/

END

The Twin-Fallacies of Nothing-But Non-Belief and of Default-Atheism

The noetic frame finds various degrees and forms of belief populating the “Doxastic Experience“.  Therefore, before describing the fallacious claim of some that this or that belief, that ANY belief, either is or else can be “Nothing-But” Non-Belief, we first need to recall the Christian’s actual definition of “Faith”. For that see the following:

1. http://disq.us/p/1yh3ruo
2. http://disq.us/p/1yh3gim
3. http://disq.us/p/1w3r23n
4. http://disq.us/p/1w3sjkh
5. http://disq.us/p/1yh7bgt
6. http://disq.us/p/1yhjehw

So, then, with that proper definition of Faith in hand:

The Impossibility Of The Doxastic Vacuum:

The nature of human belief (…which is described as “the doxastic experience” and so on…) isn’t Magic just as the nature of Mind & Consciousness isn’t Magic. On occasion our Non-Theist friends fail to address their own “Atheistic-Beliefs” by “Starting/Stopping” at the claim that “Atheism” is “nothing-more-than” a “lack of belief” or perhaps mere denial in the sense that it is not itself ALSO a statement and self-report that is the fruit of many affirmations — as in other beliefs/things-you-affirm-as-true.

The problem there is obvious: No belief can be doubted except on the basis of some other belief — that is to say that the problem is that the claim/self-report is at bottom the claim that the self-report of “I do not believe X” and/or “there is not enough evidence to justify X” or of “I Doubt Paradigm X” is/are self-report(s) which are NOT based on other beliefs/things-you-affirm-as-true — or that such self-reports are NOT based on other/prior beliefs as per the following nuance which our own contingent abstractions of our own contingent minds of our own contingent beings cannot evade:

“…..total skepticism about ultimate beliefs is… impossible… no belief can be doubted except on the basis of some other belief, [so] indifference is always in danger of giving place to …a fanaticism that can be as intolerant as any religion has ever been……” (by L. Newbigin)

To deny that quote’s observation of “…no belief can be doubted except on the basis of some other belief…” is to claim that “To Claim A Lack Of Belief In X” is NOT a conclusion which is ITSELF built atop earlier, or more proximal, or more upstream, or more fundamental “first principles” vis-à-vis affirmations and therefore the Non-Theist is left insisting on a “mid-air” fuzzy sort of  “Doxastic Vacuum” of “nothing-but-non-belief”. But that is logically impossible given the contingent nature of ALL semantic intent — that is to say that it is logically impossible for our belief states to be otherwise — to be “vacuums” void of affirmations and a key reason why is because all of our knowledge is necessarily Contingent and not of our own Necessity.

It is NOT “only” Non-Theism / Atheism but it is ALL self-reports of doubt (Etc.) which constitute a belief state and NO belief state about ANY-thing is possible but for the floor beneath it — and that floor is a latticework of Affirmations/Positive-Claims — such that “…no belief can be doubted except on the basis of some other belief…”

Brief Digression:

We are leaving to the side the role of Will/Insistence/Agenda/Fear/Etc. here and therein we are leaving to the side the role of self-deception in its many forms but, of course, the Will obviously has Her Say — there IS the demonstrable layer of the WILL woven into rationalization. Addiction Medicine is the painful proof of the interface of WILL/REASON. For brief segues into that whole arena of Rational Belief/Unbelief and Irrational Belief/Unbelief see the following brief list but recall, again, “that” is not the topic here but, instead, the nature of the doxastic experience and its unavoidable latticework ((Etc. Etc.)) is the focus here.

A— Psychoanalysis and the Coyne-esque as per both Part 1 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/10/walter-mitty-atheism.html?showComment=1444541683395&m=1#c5184040431704814012 and as per Part 2 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/10/walter-mitty-atheism.html?showComment=1444541694376&m=1#c6385469427809387454

B— https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/10/a-response-to-edward-feser-on-romans-1.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb08867c22970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb08867c22970d

C— https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/10/a-response-to-edward-feser-on-romans-1.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb08867e57970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb08867e57970d

C’s Typo Correction https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/10/a-response-to-edward-feser-on-romans-1.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb088681c0970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb088681c0970d

End Brief Digression.

One’s own syllogisms regarding the Trio of Perception, Reason, and Reality are all in fact Affirmations of what counts as Rational Metrics and Rational Inquiry and, therefore, all self-reports are in fact based on beliefs about that Trio and about those Metrics of Veracity and Inquiry. The fallacy is that “Nothing-But-A-Lack-Of-Belief” can actually exist — as if a Doxastic Vacuum were possible. But such a vacuum of “Nothing-But” is impossible given the nature of our own doxastic experience and the nature of the contingent abstractions of the contingent minds of contingent beings.

“But Babies & Neonates Are Atheists”

Here we must ask this in reply to such a statement, “Do Neonates make claims of not enough evidence?” Also, it is trivially true that neonates are Atheists-About-Everything-Including-Mathematics-&-Physics-&-Etc.  Therefore we can simply grant that mathematics and chemistry are also Non-Entity per this bizarre category of “Truth-As-Per-Neonates”. But of course our Non-Theist friends don’t mean to say THAT and are instead merely dancing to avoid addressing the veracity of “….no belief can be doubted except on the basis of some other belief….”

Atheism is a claim with respect to Evidence & Metrics vis-à-vis our own Perception, Mind, and Reason and like ALL claims it too is inextricably woven together with multiple Affirmations. It is in fact a logical absurdity to claim that ANY belief or claim is itself based on no prior any-thing, as in based on no prior beliefs. Any such Doxastic Vacuum of “Nothing-But” is impossible given the contingent nature of our own doxastic experience ((….and the nature of the contingent abstractions of the contingent minds of contingent beings etc….)).

At bottom these lines of definition with respect to the term Atheism put our Non-Theist friends on record as denying the veracity of the following: “….no belief can be doubted except on the basis of some other belief….”

Of course IF our Non-Theist friends agree with that claim ((“….no belief can be doubted except on the basis of some other belief….”)) well then we can examine those Affirmations/Beliefs as we unpack Mind, Perception, Time, Change, and the First Person Experience of Self/Intention vis-à-vis our own perception of our own Rock-Bottom “i-am” ((….the Self…Etc…)) which so many Non-Theists assure us all sum to Illusion (…and given Non-Theism’s toolbox they’re correct of course…).

Faith vs the fallacy of “…atheism is “nothing-but” non-belief…”

The reality of “Nothing-But” non-belief sums to a metaphysical absurdity in that any such vacuum is a logical, physical, and metaphysical impossibility.  It is also a category error in that the claim too often mistakes Non-Knowledge (…have never heard of x….) for Non-Belief (…have heard of x, but given abcd etc., I do not believe x is justified….). 

Rocks Are Atheists? Doubts Based On No-Thing? Doubts are not possible without basing those doubts on other beliefs ((…beliefs surrounding what counts as rational metrics and rational inquiry for example…)). At times it seems our Non-Theist friends want to foist a sort of “Out Of No-Thing” approach to their Self-Reports about their own belief-states. Obviously all Self-Reports are the end result of all previous Weighing/Reasoning/Mapping and, so, when one is caught trying to foist the “Out Of No-Thing” fallacy the “Next Move” once someone is caught is to attempt to “Equate” their [A] doxastic experience with respect to God after they’ve read 25 books worth of “thought content” about “God/Gods” to [B] the Neonate’s doxastic experience with respect to God/Gods and, as is painfully obvious that fails the simple laws of logic vis-à-vis Identity. For clarity: the fallacy there is that once one’s Mind produces the syntax of “Neonates Are Atheists About Rocks & Trees & God & Gods” then one’s Mind is already in the midst of Claim-Making / Reasoning / Weighing / Mapping a whole array of beliefs surrounding what counts as rational metrics and rational inquiry ((…and far more…)) and of course all of that intersects in what some refer to as their own / our own Noetic Latticework — the doxastic architecture out of which their/our Claim-Making streams.  And so as we continue to unpack the bizarre “Rocks Are Atheists” we can perhaps ask our Non-Theist friends something like the following:

“What does a Tree’s/Rock’s lack of a Mind inform you of? That is to say, what is the take-away lesson from “Trees/Rocks Have No Minds / No Beliefs”? You’re the only one here insisting there is some sort of value in the observation that “Trees/Rocks Have No Minds/Beliefs”. Or perhaps “Rocks Have No Thoughts”? “Water Molecules Have No Opinions”? “Water Molecules Have No Minds”?  Notice that both in Category and in Identity all of the above questions are logically related to your “Rocks Are Atheists” line of “informing us of something”. But what is that something?

Born Without Knowledge of God? Perhaps not. First there is the level of [A] “…It is only fair to say this if you mean discursive knowledge of God, that is, propositional knowledge of God. I say that everyone is born with an AWARENESS of God, and direct AWARENESS of P is sufficient for some knowledge of P, albeit a pre-discursive kind…” ((from Twitters’s ‪@EveKeneinan)). And, then, there is level [B] “…It is not necessarily fair to say people are born without the knowledge of God. They’ve studied children’s attitude towards the world and found that they approach it teleologically, which is an inherently theistic approach….” ((…by Twitter’s @pantakoina…)). And then there is A + B which carries us forward into a conversation which pulls all terms back into our natural mode of interacting with the world around us, and therefore [C] the following https://metachristianity.com/consciousness-emergence-intentionality-searle-reason-atop-the-irrational/

No Metaphysics Needed? Perhaps that’s not the case. As one of our Non-Theist friends tries to make that case with “Rocks are atheists. See? There is no metaphysical baseline of beliefs needed to be an atheist…” he is given a reply by Twitter’s ‪@IntelegentF as per the following excerpts surrounding that premise:

“…If we’re talking about the kind of atheism rocks practice, sure, but the moment you’re capable of thinking about questions like “can the universe exist without a creator,” you have to adopt positions to answer that. Positions which have to be arrived at somehow…. Are you born with the knowledge that “I don’t have enough information”? That’s a judgement you made for yourself. Fair enough, but the point is that the path we take at fork in the road that splits into atheism and theism is still dictated by a belief we arrive at after birth….. [we must] describe the reasons people who are capable of knowledge have for believing or not believing….  It’s impossible to be an atheist based on lack of knowledge for anyone who has heard about God. So the reason you were an “atheist” as a baby has no relation to the reason you’re an atheist now….. I guess it’s just a question of how broadly we define atheism then. There’s no point in arguing definitions, but, for me, 99% of the time, people are talking about the knowledgeable atheist, rather than the unknowing type….”

Rational Metrics Of Inquiry? There are ontological and epistemological implications entailed in ANY “Non-Theistic” terminus and one may not be a materialist or a panpsychist or a Whatever, etc. but, nonetheless, the implications of any worldview do not need to be spelled out in order to be real. The “Non” of Non-Theism” forces an embrace of some [set] of modes of perception/interpretation vis-à-vis “what-counts-as-rational-metrics” while forcing a simultaneous rejection of another [set] of modes of perception/interpretation vis-à-vis “what-counts-as-rational-metrics” and in all cases there are, whether one is informed enough about it or not, a series of ontological and epistemological implications.

Before Continuing To Unpack The Impossibility Of The Doxastic Vacuum — A Few Observations With Respect to Logic 101

Begin Excerpts:

“…More importantly, we can defend them by the method of retorsion, which involves showing that one cannot deny them on pain of self-contradiction or incoherence. This method is sometimes misunderstood. Some people think it merely involves showing that we can’t help *thinking* a certain way, but where this leaves it open that this way of thinking might nevertheless not correspond to reality. In other words, they think that retorsion arguments are essentially about human *psychology*. That is not at all the case. Rightly understood, such arguments are a species of *reductio* *ad* *absurdum* argument. They involve defending a claim by showing that the denial of the claim entails a contradiction, and thus cannot as a matter of objective fact (and not merely as a contingent matter of human psychology) be correct… …The word “proof” has, historically, been used in different senses.

Naturally, I don’t mean that the arguments are proofs in exactly the same sense in which a mathematical proof is a “proof.” They are mostly not *a* *priori* arguments, for one thing. But I used the word deliberately, and I certainly claim a high degree of certainty for the claim that God exists. For example, I would claim that it is as certain that God exists as it is that the world external to our minds is real and not an illusion foisted upon us by a Cartesian demon or the Matrix. How can I say that? Well, the point of the book to show this. The arguments are “proofs” in that, first of all, the conclusion is claimed to follow *deductively* from the premises. They are not mere probabilistic inferences, arguments to the best explanation, or “God of the gaps” arguments. (I hate “God of the gaps” arguments.) The claim is that the arguments show, not merely that God is the most likely explanation of the facts asserted in the premises of the arguments, but rather that God is the *only *possible *explanation *in *principle of those facts. Second, the premises are knowable with certainty.

The premises include both empirical premises (for example, the premise that change occurs) and philosophical premises (for example, the premise that everything has an explanation or is intelligible). The premises in turn can be defended in various ways that show them to be beyond reasonable doubt. For example, some of them can be defended via retorsion arguments (which, again, are a species of *reductio *ad *absurdum argument). That is to say, such arguments try to show that anyone who denies such-and-such a claim is implicitly contradicting himself. So in arguments of the sort I am defending, the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises, and the premises are claimed to be knowable beyond any reasonable doubt. That sort of argument fits one traditional use of the word “proof.”

Naturally, I am aware that some people will nevertheless challenge the arguments or remain doubtful about one or more of them. But that’s true of every single argument one could give for any conclusion, even mathematical proofs. A determined and clever enough skeptic will always be able to come up with *some* grounds for doubt, even if the grounds are bizarre or far-fetched. That doesn’t mean that the grounds are, all things considered, going to be reasonable ones. Anyway, my calling something a “proof” doesn’t entail that I think every reader, even every fair-minded reader, is immediately going to be convinced. What it is meant to indicate is the nature of the connection between the facts described in the premises and the fact described in the conclusion. It is a *metaphysical* claim, not a *sociological* claim. Too many people mix these things up. They think that as long as a significant number of people are likely not to agree with some argument, you can’t call it a “proof.” That just misunderstands the way the term is being used…”

End Excerpts ((…from https://strangenotions.com/ama-dr-feser-answers/…)) ((…star * & bold added…))

Continuing To Unpack The Impossible Doxastic Vacuum

For a basic framework of the problem, here is an excerpt from a prior discussion on the Twin Facts of the Upstream and of the Downstream:

Begin Excerpt:

Isn’t it actually the case that you do in fact doubt and/or reject this or that belief(s) based on some other belief(s)? Or do you make such decisions based on No-Thing?

Is it the case that you have No-Belief about what counts as rational metrics and rational inquiry?

“…..total skepticism about ultimate beliefs is… impossible… no belief can be doubted except on the basis of some other belief, [so] indifference is always in danger of giving place to …a fanaticism that can be as intolerant as any religion has ever been……” (by L. Newbigin)

You say you said as much in that you don’t believe X unless the evidence etc. convinces you.

Yet you deny that your (upstream) beliefs about what counts as rational metrics are in fact beliefs, and you deny that your (upstream) beliefs about what counts as rational inquiry are in fact beliefs.

Why?

When you evaluate evidence, do you employ No-Thing in order to evaluate the evidence as you arrive at your conclusion? Or do you employ what you consider to be rational metrics and/or rational inquiry?

If the latter, what is it that brought you to that place in which you came to consider [metrics a, b, c, and d etc.] to be rational metrics?

Recall that you are denying the second half of this:

“…..no belief can be doubted except on the basis of some other belief…….”

You are so far disagreeing with that in that you are so far claiming that you doubt and/or reject this or that belief(s) based on No-Thing.
Why? Isn’t it actually the case that you do in fact doubt and/or reject this or that belief(s) based on some other belief(s)?

Well you later agreed that the upstream content described there does in fact precede the downstream content described there. Okay then. Given that you agree that it is impossible to deny this or that downstream [belief(s)] without basing it on some other, earlier, upstream [belief(s)], then why are you, now, denying that you affirm those earlier, upstream [belief(s)]? If that is the case then you’ve looped back to basing it on No-Thing (…and Etc…) and are therein not actually denying A-Thing (…and Etc…).

If you do NOT deny that you affirm those earlier, upstream [belief(s)], well then we arrive at the Non-Theist’s Twin Fallacies.

End Excerpt.

Regarding a few parts typically found within all of that, we find some raising the issue of the “One Fewer God” challenge or the “I simply believe in one less god than you” challenge, or the “One God Further” challenge, or:

“….my claim of not-your-god is “nothing-but” non-belief…”

The problem with that statement (“….my claim of not-your-god is “nothing-but” non-belief…”) with respect to the doxastic experience which we all share in is looked at in the following:

• http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html
• http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/further-thought-on-one-god-further.html
• https://www.rzim.org/read/a-slice-of-infinity/spaghetti-monsters-and-one-less-god
• https://www.rzim.org/read/rzim-global/of-atheists-and-straw-gods
• https://metachristianity.com/atheism-world-flat-none-non-non-theist/

The upstream beliefs about reality which give life to our downstream claims upon what counts as rational inquiry and what counts as rational metrics (…and whatever claims about brute fact or explanatory box or descriptive array or “X” or “Not-X” they happen to lead to…) are just that, beliefs about reality.

Skepticism Of Skepticism

“One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs… Everyone believes something, but it is apparently the “intellectual atheist” who is not swayed by beliefs and are purely empirically based…” The proverbial Dog & Pony Show in and out of “As-If” “No-Beliefs” ((https://twitter.com/LondonTheist/status/1330993845656576000?s=20))

And again from another lens:

“It is possible, by an act of will, to distrust the intellect in a move of radical skepticism— and then to go on to distrust the skepticism itself — and end in a void. But this is a CHOICE. No REASONS can be adduced for this existential DECISION — since REASON is rejected. How do we AVOID the VOID of the radical skepticism that is skeptical even of skepticism? Don’t CHOOSE it. If we are RATIONALLY SKEPTICAL, our skepticism will be grounded in a prudent fear of error. But we soon recognize that an excess fear of error becomes FEAR OF TRUTH, if carried too far. See Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s “The Phenomenology Of Spirit”” ((https://twitter.com/EveKeneinan/status/1329567187019980801?s=20))

The following is from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s “The Phenomenology Of Spirit”

Quote:

“If the absolute is only to be brought just a bit closer to us through the instrument, without the instrument changing anything about the absolute, perhaps as is done to a bird through a lime twig, then the absolute would surely ridicule such a ruse if it were not in and for itself already with us and did not already want to be with us; for cognition would be a ruse in such a case, since through its manifold efforts it creates the impression of doing something altogether different from simply bringing about an immediate and therefore effortless relation. Or, if the testing of cognition which we suppose to be a medium made us acquainted with the law of its refraction, it would be just as useless to subtract this refraction from the result, for it is not the refraction of the ray but rather the ray itself through which the truth touches us that is cognition, and if this is subtracted, then all that would be indicated to us would be just pure direction or empty place. Meanwhile, if the concern about falling into error sets up a mistrust of science, which itself, untroubled by such scruples, simply sets itself to work and actually cognizes, it is still difficult to see why on the contrary a mistrust of this mistrust should not be set up and why one should not be concerned that this fear of erring is already the error itself. In fact, this fear presupposes something, and in fact presupposes a great deal, as truth, and it bases its scruples and its conclusions on what itself ought to be tested in advance as to whether or not it is the truth. This fear presupposes representations of cognizing as an instrument and as a medium, and it also presupposes a difference between our own selves and this cognition; but above all it presupposes that the absolute stands on one side and that cognition stands on the other for itself, and separated from the absolute, though cognition is nevertheless something real; that is, it presupposes that cognition, which, by being outside of the absolute, is indeed also outside of the truth, is nevertheless truthful; an assumption through which that which calls itself the fear of error gives itself away to be known rather as the fear of truth.”

End Quote. ((—from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel The Phenomenology Of Spirit))

Once again the upstream beliefs about reality which give life to our downstream claims upon what counts as rational inquiry and what counts as rational metrics (…and whatever claims about brute fact or explanatory box or descriptive array or “X” or “Not-X” they happen to lead to…) are just that, beliefs about reality.

Despite the Non-Theist’s Claim, No One Is Immune:

Our Non-Theist friends often seek “immunity” by avoiding the actual content of the doxastic experience in general with respect to their claim of “Nothing-But-Non-Belief”.

The “Continuum” which logically precedes and chronologically precedes any of our present-day utterances has slowly morphed and changed over the years. Our Non-Theist friends seek to deny that Continuum of Currents but end up affirming it:

“Today when my Mom tells me “X” I can doubt her “pending more evidence”, whereas, when I was 2 years old her voice itself and her say-so itself served as “The-Evidence” and as “Enough”. Authority-Full-Stop. Over the years that Authority-Full-Stop has morphed and changed and has become a more intricately layered latticework regarding what counts as rational inquiry and what counts as rational metrics.”

There is a Continuum of a body of Currents leading our Non-Theist friend to affirm that earlier fact that Mommy’s Voice Equals Evidence at the age of 2. Authority’s voice populated the Pre-Belief/Pre-Doubt Currents leading into the 2 year old’s belief in “X”. Notice now that, over the years, as we’ve slowly morphed and changed, we now arrive today in a place where we still have that Body of Currents preceding our Affirmations & Doubts but the Content of said Currents has merely changed, whereas, what our Non-Theist must show is that said Continuum of said Currents never existed at all and still doesn’t exist today. He must show us that Mommy’s Voice did not precede his belief in “X” and did not serve as “Enough” to “Justify” his belief in “X” as a 2 year old leading him into said belief-state even as he must show us Today’s identical “Vacuum”.

Notice now today that our Non-Theist friend has his affirmations of his beliefs about what counts as Evidence, what counts as Rational Inquiry, and what counts as Rational Metrics as he insists, now, today, still in that Continuum, the content from that earlier statement:

“Today when my Mom tells me “X” I can doubt her “pending more evidence”, whereas, when I was 2 years old her voice itself and her say-so itself served as “The-Evidence” and as “Enough”. Authority-Full-Stop. Over the years that Authority-Full-Stop has morphed and changed and has become a more intricately layered latticework regarding what counts as rational inquiry and what counts as rational metrics.”

The Content of the Continuum leads him to his Affirmations/Yes’s wherein he Makes-A-Claim and Reveals-His-Belief that “Authority-Full-Stop” does NOT count as Rational Metrics and does NOT end Rational Inquiry.  Notice that he has, still, all sorts of beliefs about what counts as evidence and what counts as rational inquiry and how it has slowly morphed and changed over the years.  Unfortunately that only demonstrates something OTHER than “Nothing-But-Non-Belief” as that Continuum/Current is NOT “No-Thing”.

Our Non-Theist friend is stuck at this point and will want to pretend that there is no such history of any such Continuum of Currents slowly morphing and changing over the years.

It is helpful to give a “basic” description of what is actually in that Continuum of Currents – and – so – basically – we find that all syllogisms are soaked through with a Latticework – with a Trio of sorts – and said Latticework / Trio consists of interfaces amid Perception and Reason and Reality and that Latticework was and is always growing and morphing over the years and it was and is populated with the Trio’s litany of interfacing vectors. From a purely Physicalist perspective that Latticework just is our neuronal “Network” which one “Speaks-Out-Of” today and it is painfully obvious that it is ANYTHING BUT a “Vacuum” full of “Nothing-But” Non-Things vis-à-vis “Non-Belief” vis-à-vis “Non-Latticework”.

Nonetheless, quite inexplicably, our Non-Theist friends still want to deny that Continuum / Currents not only with respect to its existence but also with respect to how it has slowly morphed and changed over the years. The reason is obvious: They KNOW that if they concede that it has always been there – always growing and morphing over the years – from Mommy’s voice all the way to Esoteric Physics ((Etc., Etc.)) well then they are stuck with that undeniable Continuum of Beliefs and Affirmations preceding their most recent Utterances of Doubt and/or Belief.

As Contingent Beings we can say that our Claims and Self-Reports are…..what? Well we have our own contingent being vis-à-vis our own contingent minds vis-à-vis our own contingent perceptions vis-à-vis our own contingent abstractions. “We” do not Flow-Out-Of-Nothing —but — rather — out of that aforementioned continuum and whether one is a Physicalist or Metaphysical Naturalist or Theist or Christian ((Etc., Etc.)) “that” does not change and in fact cannot change ((…the Continuum of Being & Consciousness is obviously incoherent in any Non-Theistic paradigm but that is a different topic…)).

Notice that all of those downstream claims necessarily exist in and by and because of that ocean of earlier, more basic, more upstream Affirmations/Yes’s.  The proverbial “whole show”, from the Child’s “…Mommy’s voice…” to the Adult’s “…Robust T.O.E…” necessarily houses that Continuum of Currents – that Latticework which not only exists but which also is slowly morphing and changing over the years and which also is therein void of “vacuums” which are somehow “void-of-all-affirmations/yes’s”.

Unfortunately (…for that premise…) the existence of such downstream vacuums is impossible within the noetic frame as all downstream claims upon reality necessarily stem from those earlier, more basic, upstream affirmations vis-à-vis what counts as Rational Inquiry and vis-à-vis what counts as Rational Metrics. That becomes painfully obvious if and when one actually attempts to demonstrate any such downstream vacuum, any such downstream cul-de-sac void of all such upstream current.  On charity let’s grant the Non-Theist his equivocation about “God-Does-Not-Exist” (A-Theism) and soften it to something more agnostic:

Q: “Do you believe the sun moves around the earth? Or is it that the earth moves around the sun?”

A: “Well I don’t know. I just don’t have enough evidence to say.”

Q: “Really? How can that be?”

A: “Well because…. [enter the raging currents of perception… of metrics… of knowledge… of repeatable patterns… of (say) Mom’s voice (for the toddler) …of (say) Particle Physics (for some) …and of Etc.] So I simply don’t have any evidence to affirm the nature of the interface amid Earth/Sun.”

All of those downstream claims necessarily exist in and by and because of an ocean of earlier, more basic, more upstream affirmations. The proverbial “whole show”, from the Child’s “…Mommy’s voice…” to the Adult’s “…Robust T.O.E…” necessarily houses that continuity (…void of “vacuums”…).

In fact that seamless body of currents just is the Noetic Frame, just is the Doxastic Experience. Our Non-Theist friends are free to demonstrate otherwise…. are free to demonstrate their immunity, their Vacuum, their body of syntax magically void all such currents.

We all have beliefs about reality which inform us on how best to inquire about reality. Beliefs about reality drive our modes of inquiry with respect to reality. According to some, this or that cousin of physicalism gives us the most exhaustive explanatory accounting of reality, while according to others that is hardly the case. Offshoots or products of that lead into conflations of the descriptive for the explanatory, and into the nature of brute facts and the nature of the self-explanatory, and into several other downstream consequences of those initial, more upstream, more basic, affirmations (beliefs) about reality.

Therefore, once again: Those upstream beliefs about reality which give life to our downstream claims upon what counts for rational inquiry and what counts as rational metrics (…and *whatever* claims about brute fact or explanatory box or descriptive array or “X” or “Not-X” they happen to lead to…) are just that — beliefs about reality.

One of the nuances here is that which D.B. Hart refers to as “….the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility….” and there we come to a key or a fundamental Fountainhead or factual “Upstream Terminus” – namely that terminus as it relates to Reason Itself. The problem (there) which Metaphysical Naturalism inevitably faces is that it must – at every point in its voyage – forever seek to avoid its own Flat World and its fateful Edge of Reason which of course is impossible given Metaphysical Naturalism’s available termini (…as per https://metachristianity.com/atheism-world-flat-none-non-non-theist/ …). There again we come to the landscape of those upstream and downstream referents:

“I think solipsism is always an interesting topic because if we start “mid-stream” in our epistemology by rejecting solipsism (as I think most of us probably do), it is then interesting to try to infer what “upstream” structure of our thoughts must have led to this rejection. There is some hope that by swimming upstream in this manner we will discover certain “first principles” that lie unrecognized at the wellspring of our vis-à-vis beliefs.“ (j.hillclimber)

“…But The Boy In Tibet Has Never Heard Of……”

Non-Knowledge is not identical to Non-Belief. First, recall the Christian definition of Faith from the get-go as per the list of links given at the start.  Second, it is the case that either way, we find that the Non-Theist’s hope of immunity requires that oh-so-impossible-to-demonstrate Vacuum within the Noetic Frame, that downstream cul-de-sac somehow void of all upstream currents.

It is not only the Christian’s 4000 year history constituting the definition of Faith, but, also, it is Theism’s and Non-Theism’s own necessary “Upstream/Downstream” topography which prohibits the Fallacy of The Boy In Tibet. More on that fallacy in a moment, but first:

The proverbial Quad of belief:

Irrational Belief & Irrational Disbelief

Rational Belief & Rational Disbelief

…..all exist, but that is not the question here, nor do any of those house that mysterious Cul-De-Sac vis-à-vis that mysterious downstream vacuum within one’s noetic frame.

Going even further downstream:

We can take, say, “ABC-X” which, say, the child in Tibet has never heard of.

To say that said child in Tibet lacks belief in ABC-X is an equivocation unless and until one actually traverses and interacts with the various interfaces of [1] The child’s own noetic frame and of [2] ABC-X.

To do “that” (…to traverse…) is straightforward:  reality and/or life’s experience of perception in some form and mode asks the child, “Do you believe in ABC-X?” There, even in the mind of a child, we do not find the Non-Theist’s bizarre Vacuum, that immune cul-de-sac somehow void of all upstream currents, that bizarre “void” somehow disconnected from and floating free of all upstream content.

The earlier example of the Earth/Sun moving around one vs. the other finds no such cul-de-sac, and, here with the child in Tibet, we now find something even less like the Non-Theist’s Vacuum (…at worst…) while (…at best…) we find a lack of knowledge, which lands us once again back in the arena of the Earth/Sun example.

But the irrational claim of Immunity, of the existence of that bizarre Vacuum, is only one swirling pool within the Non-Theist’s muddied waters with respect to “Nothing-But”.

The boy in Tibet who can’t read will not come upon this or that mode of choice or option beyond his own line of sight – because he can’t understand it. For him the immutable love of God will pour in through some other window and God will saturate that with both grace and truth as only God can.

However, our Non-Theist friends here over inside of this milieu are not that boy.

Their window is different. And we find – here – that (on the one hand) irreducible reason & irreducible logic vis-à-vis Infinite Consciousness along with (on the other hand) irreducible self-giving vis-à-vis timeless reciprocity in and of the Trinitarian Life somehow seem distasteful to him, while something else tastes better to him for where reason and love are concerned he chooses a bobble named Reductio Ad Absurdum and – in order to gain her – he trades away logic’s relentless lucidity amid love’s timeless reciprocity as such relates to those uncanny Trinitarian processions within GOD.

For more on the context of The Boy In Tibet Who Can’t Read see the following:

Introduction at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/no_dr_janssen_human_beings_are_not_trying_to_find_god/#comment-3068460891 followed by Palindromic at  https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/no_dr_janssen_human_beings_are_not_trying_to_find_god/#comment-3069057627 followed by Truth-Trading In The Human Stock-Exchange & The Boy In Tibet Who Can’t Read at the following:

• https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/no_dr_janssen_human_beings_are_not_trying_to_find_god/#comment-3068629971
• https://randalrauser.com/2018/11/do-bad-children-go-to-hell/#comment-4254874139
• https://randalrauser.com/2018/11/do-bad-children-go-to-hell/#comment-4254876998
• https://randalrauser.com/2018/11/do-bad-children-go-to-hell/#comment-4254874139
• https://randalrauser.com/2018/11/do-bad-children-go-to-hell/#comment-4254915655 ((…some links are missing…))
• https://randalrauser.com/2018/04/the-complementarian-dilemma/#comment-3860763795

Tangentially Related Segues:

• https://randalrauser.com/2018/11/do-bad-children-go-to-hell/#comment-4225199715
• https://randalrauser.com/2018/11/do-bad-children-go-to-hell/#comment-4222952691

Define “Examine” ….? Define “Evidence” ….? Define  ….. (and so on) …?

When we say “examine evidence” those are two downstream actions / words which are unintelligible but for all sorts of upstream premises, beliefs, and claims (Etc.). That’s just obvious. There is no such state of affairs as “nothing-but non-belief“.

The first error is to ignore all upstream content in that fashion. A second error is to conflate a. Non-Belief for b. Non-Knowledge

This second error is where the entire “The Default Is Atheism” fallacy goes off the rails. There are several reasons that is the case here at this second error. However, the reason that is of relevance here is the fact that the Christian God is not this or that “being” nor this or that bit of “reason” but is in fact Being Itself and is in fact Reason Itself and is in fact Goodness Itself and so on.

To deny both Being and Reason, or to claim that the Default is that we are unaware of and/or somehow floating free of both Being and Reason is a move which forces a reductio (…it’s the whole Zeus is Thor is Celestial Teapot is Being-Itself is God silliness…).

For quite practical reasons we could easily flip the Default-Fallacy 180 degrees and claim that the Default is the Un-derived is the Undeniable is Being is Reason is….and so on.

Indeed. The amount of sheer intellectual gymnastics and tedious shoehorning it takes to expunge Mind Itself and the Intentional-Self Itself  and Reason Itself and one’s own Being Itself vis-à-vis one’s own “i-am” itself from one’s array of various cul-de-sacs and termini leaves the term “Default” in places quite unfriendly to our Non-Theist friends.

“Babies are born as Atheists! And I didn’t have to LEARN to Reject/Embrace anything about “God….. and also humans will innately use math and physics without being taught. They will understand gravity, even if they don’t know its name…..”

Of course that is true of ALL Categories of Knowledge given the nature of Learn / Discovery / and of course every human being lives and moves and has their very being subsumed in Gravity v. Physics and know intimately the UPs/Downs of Gravity just as every human being lives and moves and has their very being subsumed in the brutally repeatable First Person Experience of Reason Itself vis-à-vis the Intentional Self/Mind and also in the brutally repeatable Moral Experience of Man.

The Non-Theist is in fact denying the undeniable v. being, reason, the identity of Self void of illusion, and the brutally repeatable moral experience of Man. Logic & Love are therein rejected for a bobble named reductio ad absurdum. He is also affirming the absurdity of scientific realism with respect to Perception & Mind.  When we ask the Non-Theist, “Are you as the Conscious Observer experiencing the 4D Block Universe…?” we find, still, a wide array of equivocations with respect to the embedded conscious observer vis-à-vis Perception & Mind. Until the Non-Theist is willing to unpack his own paradigm’s Means/Ends of Perception, Mind, Being, Moral Facts, and Reason Itself v. the Intentional Self/Mind then he has not even left the proverbial Gate of “Know/Knowing“.

More currents arrive upon the shore with one of E. Feser’s observations from an earlier link:

A reader calls attention to Bill Vallicella’s reply to what might be called the “one god further” objection to theism.  Bill sums up the objection as follows:

“The idea, I take it, is that all gods are on a par, and so, given that everyone is an atheist with respect to some gods, one may as well make a clean sweep and be an atheist with respect to all gods. You don’t believe in Zeus or in a celestial teapot. Then why do you believe in the God of Isaac, Abraham, and Jacob?”

Or as the Common Sense Atheism blog used to proclaim proudly on its masthead: “When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

I see that that blog has now removed this one-liner, which is perhaps a sign that intellectual progress is possible even among New Atheist types.  Because while your average “Internet Infidel” seems to regard the “one god further” objection as devastatingly clever, it is in fact embarrassingly inept…

Before Closing — A Few Key Observations

All of THAT in that quote still remains to be addressed in another time and place. But, for now, a few observations and a few excerpts from another discussion which provide context before closing….

Science is a tool of description, not of explanation. Know the difference. Physics can never be/become Ontology. Know the difference. Predictive Power matters and that is why treating “science” as “perception-full-stop” is fine but to then call that “enough” regarding Realism and Antirealism just won’t do and, therefore, the predictive powers within different Philosophies of Science matter. A basic segue there would be something akin to “The Most Egregious of Naturalism’s Deficiencies” at https://metachristianity.blogspot.com/2020/01/most-egregious-of-naturalisms-deficiencies.html

To speak of god and/or gods is to speak of something other than the Christian Metaphysic because in that metaphysic there are no gods/Gods, as briefly discussed in, “GOD vs A GOD vs GODS vs THE GODS vs Sky Daddy vs Santa Clause vs Imaginary Friend vs Being Itself vs Existence Itself vs Metaphysical Wellspring Of All Ontological Possibility” at https://metachristianity.com/god-vs-a-god-vs-gods-vs-the-gods-vs-sky-daddy-vs-santa-clause/

All Thinking & all Speech are Belief-Dependent and all Belief is ultimately dependent on one’s Non-Dependent, whatever that might be. The disagreement isn’t from Christians/Theists who know belief-states ultimately terminate in the Non-Dependent — the disagreement is only from Non-Theists who insist their belief-states are immune to the Non-Dependent. Randal Rauser observes, “….A religion may involve belief in God or organization into a formal “church”, but neither is essential. At its core, a religious perspective involves one’s orientation to that which one accepts as fundamental explanatory principles and values of existence. That’s why human beings have been called Homo religiosus. And that’s why secularists who intone that they have no religion while devoting themselves toward science, human flourishing, and a secular public square are completely wrong….”

Another “lens” for that is the unavoidable fact that everyone has their respective Uncaused Wellspring of all Ontic Possibility just as everyone has their respective Explanatory Terminus. That is not the question. The QUESTION is which achieves Closure vs. Reductio Ad Absurdum. To not address THAT is to not address THE QUESTION. One’s accounting must traverse/reach on’es Explanatory Terminus and Reality’s Concrete Furniture and one’s Ultimate Source Of Things ((whatever it might be)).

“The reason is that for the classical theist, whatever else we mean by “God,” we certainly mean by that label to name the ultimate source, cause, or explanation of things. Properly to understand classical theism, the hostile atheist reader might even find it useful to put the word “God” out of his mind for the moment — given all the irrelevant associations the word might lead him to read into the present discussion — and just think instead of “the ultimate source of things.” Feser

The Myth Of Religious Neutrality  An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories. Revised Edition by Roy A. Clouser https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Religious-Neutrality-Revised-Theories-ebook/dp/B01D4TAXXC/

The One God Further Objection https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html

A Further Thought On the One God Further Objection https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/further-thought-on-one-god-further.html

Why Is There Anything At All? It’s Simple https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-is-there-anything-at-all-its-simple.html

Following are 6 comments/excerpts on the nature of the Non-Theist’s claim about his own belief-state for more general context here:

Excerpt 1 of 5:

The nature of belief or of the doxastic experience precludes the Non-Theist’s fallacious vacuum there of “nothing but“. The downstream products can be capitalized or lower-case given that products are simply products. Whereas, ingredients which give life to products are not identical to the product. And there is no such thing as this or that G or g or X or Not-G or Not-g or Not-X — and so on — but for all those earlier, upstream ingredients which gave (…give…) life to them.

2 of 5:

I have addressed your concern about this or that claim of belief or non-belief or brute fact or explain vs. describe by reminding you that they are irrelevant in that they are merely the end result of a long series of beliefs about reality.

3 of 5:

From what I can tell, based on your general approach, for you it seems to be a kind of soft-physicalism in and by the physical sciences as what counts for rational inquiry. It is a belief of mine that you do *not* have some kind of bizarre vacuum void of beliefs about reality driving you to think that way.

4 of 5:

Note the observation: “…your metrics which seem to…..” The reason that is worded that way is because I’ve not been given any other metric other than that [1] science is explaining everything while [2] theology is explaining nothing. Here in this thread. But that is not the whole show, hence it “seems” and so on….

The reason I repeat the business of the physical sciences is because that is a (downstream) product, which is relevant in so far as it is a product of (upstream) beliefs about the nature of reality, and “that interface” of belief/inquiry is what I’ve kept coming back to. You keep forgetting that my interest is to make observations about the Non-Theist’s statements about his own belief-state and how those statements relate to the fallacious claim of, “….my claim of Not-Your-God / X is nothing-but non-belief….“.

5 of 5:

Whether it is the claim of “not-your-god” or “not-your-God”, the A-Theist / Non-Theist claim of “…my claim of Not-Your-X is in fact “nothing-but” non-belief….“ is, hopefully, not something you’re trying to defend here. It does not seem you are given that nothing you said has anything to do with the incoherence or coherence of that claim.

You stated, “If your model of Yahweh does not entail the values of some physical constant, then by definition it does not explain it. No metaphysics up my left sleeve. No metaphysics up my right sleeve.”

It’s not clear what this “minimum criterion” is. Is it the one where you’re confused and assert that it is *necessary* that Being Itself create or yield or cause-to-be that which is contingent for you say that “Being Itself” must entail a value of a physical constant? You seemed to have looped back into your earlier confusion. Again, there *is* a (…necessary…) relation between the Necessary and the Contingent, but your approach is confused.

I don’t see any smokescreens. Of course Non-Theists don’t believe in G/g/X/x and so on. I’m merely defining A-Theism’s / Non-Theism’s own claims as to its own stopping points in its own inquiry into reality. I’m sorry but there is nothing there that counts as me calling Non-Theism’s claims of not-believing-in-x as fraudulent or a smokescreen to hide belief. Of course they don’t believe X.

The A-Theist’s / Non-Theist’s beliefs about reality are the necessary ingredients to all of his own downstream modes of inquiry into the fundamental nature of reality and to the resulting claims and stopping points which he demonstrates so often in threads such as this one. More to the point, it’s those pesky upstream beliefs about reality which actually make the show. The show isn’t the downstream products. The actual ingredients which give rise to the products…. that’s where the Non-Theist’s fallacious business of, “…my claim of Not-Your-God is in fact “nothing-but” non-belief….“ is debunked.

Let’s make it 6 of 6 excerpts with http://disq.us/p/1h06j3a in order to look at the following two comments made by our Non-Theist friends:

[1] “I realize that there’s a difference between the idea of Yahweh and the idea of the source and ground of all reality and I expect the other commenters here do, too. From my perspective it’s mostly theists who equivocate in this area…”

[2] “…an atheist may or may not have beliefs about the “source of reality”, the only thing you can say is that, if they do, they don’t think said source is a god…”

Regarding the last two replies: First, with respect to our belief-states the following misses the point with respect to the question on the table:

“…..an atheist may or may not have beliefs about the “source of reality”, the only thing you can say is that, if they do, they don’t think said source is a god….”

None of this is new information. We all have beliefs about reality which inform us on how best to inquire about reality. Beliefs about reality drive our modes of inquiry with respect to reality.

According to some, this or that cousin of physicalism gives us the most exhaustive explanatory accounting of reality, while according to others that is hardly the case. Offshoots or products of that lead into conflations of the descriptive for the explanatory, and into the nature of brute facts and the nature of the self-explanatory, and into several other downstream consequences of those initial, upstream beliefs. If we claim we have no such beliefs, then we may want to research the topic of the “doxastic experience”.

The nature of how our beliefs about reality impact our inquiry is an interesting slice of the proverbial pie that is the doxastic experience. Removing the term “god” and/or “God” and replacing it with “reality” or “reality’s rock-bottom” and so on clears out some of the clutter and helps us focus on that interface of belief/inquiry.

Several initial, upstream beliefs held by Non-Theists compel them into some rather unfortunate downstream consequences. The intellectual price tag some are willing to pay becomes evident as they trade away logical lucidity for this or that (…ultimately…) self-negating possibility.

The proverbial reductio ad absurdum finds it way in through the likes of Brute Fact and through the likes of the ultimately illusory bedrock of the “useful but not true” syntax of Poetic Naturalism, and through various other examples of those downstream consequences. The ultimately self-explanatory is (…obviously…) juxtaposed to those sorts of choices. As to how to proceed, the physical sciences may or may not be the only rational mode of inquiry with respect to reality’s “rock-bottom”.

Most Non-Theists and Theists who are well published come to the end of the physical sciences and reach beyond those X’s. The proverbial “Y” in the road pretty much always carries us into [A] Brute Facts or else [B] the Self-Explanatory.

The “self-explanatory” is interesting. The “Absolute’s” reference frame cannot be defined in terms of the finite and so cannot land in anything other than Self-Reference. A few insightful theologians have followed that logically compelled premise and on several intriguing levels it begins to force X’s which have overlap with specifically Trinitarian premises.

Regardless of where our line of inquiry takes us we find the Non-Theist’s and the Theist’s initial, upstream beliefs about the nature of reality fully in-play, driving their respective downstream claim-making as to just what counts as rational inquiry, as to just what counts as rational metrics.

With respect to that word “regardless”, Non-Theists too often attempt to claim immunity for their own belief-state and we see this best exemplified or demonstrated in the affairs of their “one-less-god-than-you” claim of, “….my claim of Not-Your-X is “nothing-but” non-belief….”

Non-Theists want to claim immunity and therefore want to claim that some sort of magical (…inexplicable…) or non-porous barrier between those interfaces exists – vis-à-vis their own belief-state. It’s fine if they want to claim, and believe, that such a thing exists. That claim itself (…of immunity…) is another interesting occurrence (…in this series of observations…). That is to say that that claim itself (…of immunity…) is another interesting belief – itself the downstream product of a long series of upstream beliefs about reality.

Reality’s continuum ruins claims of immunity. There are consequences for trading away lucidity in favor of claiming – gaining – the Brute Fact option. That move sets all lower levels as the inexplicable and that is *not* an agnostic claim *nor* a claim that we are simply limited by our tools. Then, from there, the consequences on all claim-making moves which take place in all distal locations which stream from that metaphysical fountainhead — all downstream consequences — suffer an intellectual price tag. Non-Theists in general fail to account for that continuum.

Now, that continuum and those downstream consequences are fine if Non-Theists want to believe in those and in their claim-making, however, it is the upstream beliefs about reality which lead Non-Theists into those unfortunate tar pits which are of interest here with respect to the fallacious nature of the Non-Theist’s claim of  “….my claim of Not-Your-X is “nothing-but” non-belief….”

With respect to that continuum, the Non-Theist’s claim-making-move to assert and/or argue that such a magical (…inexplicable…) or non-porous barrier between upstream beliefs and downstream claim-making-moves actually exists (….presumably within that continuum….) is in part motivated by the Non-Theist’s desire – want – to claim that his claim-making is constituted of “nothing-but” the stuff of “no-beliefs” with respect to reality.

Observational reality therein seems to affirm that Non-Theists want to claim immunity and therefore want to claim that some sort of magical (….inexplicable….) or non-porous barrier between those interfaces exists. Again, it’s fine if they want to claim, and believe, that such a thing exists. That claim itself (…of immunity…) is another interesting occurrence (…in this series of observations…). That is to say that that claim itself (…of immunity…) is another interesting belief – itself the downstream product of a long series of upstream beliefs about reality.

Lastly, a final comment from one of our Non-Theist friends:

“I realize that there’s a difference between the idea of Yahweh and the idea of the source and ground of all reality and I expect the other comments here do, too. From my perspective it’s mostly theists who equivocate in this area – when it suits their argument, of course.”

The concept that the conceptual ceilings of contingent beings define the actual ontological referents upon which Christian premises actually “land” is misguided. It’s akin to conflating Physics / Cosmology for Ontology. In fact that same conflation leads many to reason and argue “As-If” it is actually possible that Sinai was, is, or even can be God’s Eternal Ideal for Mankind. The Cruciform Lens is the only logically possible lens there (and in the rest) and that is because “The-Good” cannot be defined by, land in, ANY contingent set of counterfactuals in this or that Possible World. On the Christian Metaphysic, and on the bite of the bulldog of logic, “The-Good” is nothing less than “GOD”.

And of course that is “why” all which constitutes “Sinai” is defined by both the Old Testament and the New Testament as that which lacks the Far-Better which is up-head.  Given that the Means and Ends under review here are NOT in Sinai and given that Scripture itself claims just that fact, and given that it is logically impossible for “GOD” to in fact “condone” in any meaningful sense this or that slice of “Privation” as “The-Good”, and given that Man’s true good, his final felicity, is in fact “The-Good“, and that “that” just is God Himself, we find that Scripture’s definitions with respect to the Means and Ends of Moral Excellence never would come though Sinai but must come in and through nothing less than All-Sufficiency’s Own Self-Outpouring (…as per http://disq.us/p/1y85jdc …).

All of that forces a logical impossibility & secondary to an kind of Ontic-Cherry-Picking which weaves its way through the polemic of our Non-Theist friends as it in fact:

Equates Privation to Wholeness, just as it

Equates the Privation of God’s Will to the Actualization of God’s Will, just as it

Equates the Privation of The Good for the The Good.

All of which sums to one, far-reaching logical impossibility (… http://disq.us/p/1n7loqb …).

In all of the above there is one, common error, and that is that our Non-Theist friends reason and argue “As-If” The Trinitarian Life is “malleable” or mutable (Etc.).  Of course as we unpack “Being Itself” (and so on) that is revealed as yet one more metaphysical absurdity. That is off topic here but is looked at in the following:

1. http://disq.us/p/1wq6j96
2. http://disq.us/p/1mvz63h
3. http://disq.us/p/1n7mcb3
4. http://disq.us/p/1mw1zyl
5. http://disq.us/p/1k7x907

Lastly – Regarding Reciprocity, Being, and Closure

MAPPING RECIPROCITY:

In the Christian metanarrative we find the Trinitarian metaphysic and, therein, love’s timeless Self-Giving and irreducible Diffusiveness of the Ontic Self with respect to …being itself... and, thereby – once again – The Always and The Already, that which is ceaselessly Beneath and Above – namely “Love & Necessity” as an ontic singularity.

It is there that we find in the Christian metaphysic the intellectual and moral grounds for affirming the term, “Love Himself” vis-à-vis the A and the Z of the Trinitarian Life / Trinity with respect to the Decree of the Imago Dei, and all that comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there that we find nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being – and all that comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there in nothing less than Being that we find The Always and The Already constituting love’s timeless reciprocity and Self-Giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum, and all that comes with “that”.

It is *that* explanatory terminus which is reality’s rock-bottom, reality’s irreducible substratum – the A and the Z of every possible ontic, of every possible sentence.

MAPPING BEING: 

The topic of mapping reality carries us forward in our inquiry. The map of “Being Itself”, which of course is not the territory, begins to take shape:

[A] is not [B]

[B] is not [C]

[C] is not [A]

Each is Being in totum, each is *GOD* (…that proverbial “Map” is the topic of  https://metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/ ..).

Both [1] Logic and [2] Love’s timeless reciprocity compel reason (…in her proper role as truth-finder….) into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic.

 

— End —

 

But What About Hell and God? What About Cosmic Fairness?

Step 1 of 12 – Preliminaries:

In our shared experience we have our collective mixology of a sense of Irreducible / Cosmic Fairness laced through with a sense of Irreducible / Cosmic Grace and therein a narrowed T.O.E. which is in fact top heavy with the Judgement of Forgive-For-They-Know-Not presses through. It is there (…among many other foci…) where our Non-Theist friends reveal their own betrayal of the paradigm they mean to defend as they reveal a very Christian-esque set of demands upon “reality”. Any Cosmic System of ethics which is top-heavy with anything other than irreducible / cosmic indifference at reality’s “rock-bottom” is – for obvious reasons – troubling for Non-Theism of any kind (…which includes Buddhism’s appeal to an elemental substratum radically different than love’s irreducible contours amid Self/Other…)given that such ontic-ends are inaccessible to any such paradigm. The concept of “the convertibility of the transcendentals” weighs in there through the pure force of logic but will be largely left to the side in this brief discussion.

“You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics—in physical laws—every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It’s clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I’m absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that as you sow, so you will reap” stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I’ve done a lot of stupid stuff…. [ …..] …But I’d be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I’d be in deep s—. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace.” (Bono)

Is love the highest ethic? That question focuses on the convertibility of the transcendentals such that the rational is in fact seamless with the moral there at the end of all possible “ontic-voyages”. Does an enlightened society believe any one part of the syntax in the sentence “love is the highest ethic“? Or does an enlightened society instead love something other than irreducible veracity and thereby truly believe in, say, something akin to a kind of equivocation or perhaps a kind of noble lie or perhaps a kind of “cosmically-induced autohypnosis” baked into us through this or that genetic/epigenetic meme?

Step 2 – Preliminary Discussions:

It is unfortunate that in these discussions with our Non-Theist friends, not always, but quite often, it turns out that *if* we remove eternal conscious torment (…commonly abbreviated ECT…) and employ (…instead…) Christendom’s segues into annihilationism or Christendom’s segues into universalism or Christendom’s segues into conditional immortality then our Non-Theist friends, after making quite an emotive storm demanding Cosmic Fairness as their non-negotiable metric of truth, inexplicably just drop all of that “non-negotiable” claim-making and all of that “metric of truth” claim-making (…as if it was all a pretense… perhaps…)and, then, simply shrug and, then, employ some sort of softened version of “…okay you got me…“, and, then, move on to some other location on the floor of the stock-exchange busily trading-away love’s timeless – and irreducible – metaphysic.

Where love itself is concerned and where the highest ethic is concerned, such being self-giving love, it is the Non-Theist’s painfully necessary metaphysical reality that all his own explanatory termini are constituted of tediously complex self-negations amid ultimately fictitious “As-If’s” ending in the pains of metaphysical elimination immersed within autohypnosis wrapped up inside of Noble Lies and as such factually fail to do the necessary “ontic-work”. With respect to (…actual, metaphysical, cosmic, ultimate…); fairness, and justice, and injustice, there are very important differences of course (…and that work will have to be done further downstream…), but, the only players with ANY possible claim to rational (…actual, metaphysical, cosmic, ultimate…) resolution of evil, of injustice, of unfairness, are:

[A] Hell defined as ECT (hence Christianity)

[B] Universalism (hence Christianity)

[C] Conditional Immortality (hence Christianity)

[D] Hinduism (not Spinoza’s pantheism for many reasons, and not Buddhism’s equivocation upon Naturalism)

[“D” has much which needs unpacking but that isn’t the main focus here.]

Now, whatever player wants to claim a seat at the table, nothing can change the necessary moral landscape of what is needed here, namely the non-fictitious, irreducible Good, and specifically the sort which obligates reason herself in her proper role as truth-finder to chase after love’s categorical means and ends (…lest reason be factually / ontologically *un*– reasonable should she chase after – or claim – some other contour….. contra Hume…).

Paradigms and/or explanatory termini which ultimately annihilate “Cosmic Fairness” just won’t do. In short, removing Hell defined as eternal conscious torment (…removing [A]….) from the Christian’s metaphysical landscape (…easy enough to coherently do, hence many have…) won’t change the Non-Theist’s painfully obvious problem of fictitiousness in all fronts dealing with love and ought-love just as such won’t change the Non-Theist’s obvious problem of his own moral and intellectual disingenuousness in his claim-making demanding cosmic fairness.

Step 3 – Truth and Truth Metrics:

Two valid concerns emerge in that question. First, that of ECT / Eternal Conscious Torment vis-à-vis Cosmic Fairness and love, and secondly, the Non-Theist’s horrific ethic of 51%/49% where love is concerned, which usually manifests thusly:

“You know, honestly I have crossed the 51% / 49% threshold ratio of helping others and the idea of eternal conscious torment for leading what is overall a good life sums to a set of claims that is simply void of the word “fair” and the word “just”. That’s my honest sense of things.”

[We will – here in this brief discussion – leave to the side the various defenses of and criticism of eternal conscious torment (ECT) and simply reference the book, “Four Views on Hell”, Second Edition (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Preston Sprinkle (Editor), Denny Burk (Contributor), John G. Stackhouse Jr. (Contributor), Robin Parry (Contributor), and Jerry Walls (Contributor).]

Again, all of this is a valid concern which many have. So let’s start well before ECT and journey towards ECT and those other segues mentioned in our preliminaries:

Love only at 51%? Okay. Let’s go with “that” demand of “*But* I have crossed the threshold of 51% and *therefore* love ought, now, sort of “kick in” as it were…”

That is very concerning given the horrific ethic it is actually resting upon. We love our own beloved regardless of any such math. How do our Non-Theist friends not know that? With our own beloved we love them in and through both their sickness and their health, in and through both their best moments and their worst moments (….quite unlike the landscape which the horrific ethic of this scale of “51% / 49%” forces us into….). How do our Non-Theist friends not know that?

On love, while God is not blind we in part are such that in our marriages we who know in part find that the groom is blinded by love and desires the beloved regardless of her worst, and rightly so, for such is love. How do our Non-Theist friends not know that? Even further we find that the peculiar God of whom we speak, the Infinite Knower, loves the beloved (…the Adamic…) regardless of her worst – for such is love. How do our Non-Theist friends not know that? That question is asked *because* every bit of our own undeniable experience within love and every bit of observational reality and every bit of the peculiar God of whom we speak just forces that undeniable fact upon us.

There is no cunningly devised set of smoke and mirrors here: interface amid Self/Other – that is to say – amid Groom/Bride – that is to say – amid God/Man – that is to say – amid Weddings simply come down to love’s proposal and to what the beloved volitionally chooses to love in the light of day.

Step 4 – Two Paradigm’s Respective Ethical Rock-Bottoms:

We have to ask ourselves if we believe in, love, and value Fairness as a metric of truth because it is The-True and The-Beautiful. The question is not whether or not we value justice and fairness. Of course we do. That’s not the question. The question is in what sense? Whence the ontological singularity which sums to Perfect-Mercy-Perfect-Justice? Do we in fact value Cosmic Fairness as an actual truth-metric such that any paradigm which finally, at some ontic-seam somewhere, annihilates that metric is ipso facto found to falsely interpreting reality?

With respect to ECT it is the case that from antiquity internal discussions within Christendom have segued into other robust conclusions (…as listed earlier and so on…) and yet still our Non-Theist friends make two moves which are quite bizarre: First, they knowingly reject the truth-metric under review and embrace as their own primordial ethic a frightening affirmation of Cosmic Unfairness as such relates to love’s informed and volitional motions amid Self/Other (…as opposed to embracing cosmic fairness and logic’s lucidity…). Secondly, on top of that they too often add a horrific layer of ascribing to love that fateful moral landscape of only “really kicking in – for real” once the math of 51% has been traversed vis-à-vis our beloved.

Those two moves are both revealing and unfortunate.

Step 5 – Moves and Possible Motives:

We have all suffered at the hands of something akin to unfairness. We have seen and known and tasted, simply by living, many of the horrific contours of unfairness and of love’s antithesis of that within the contours of fairness and even further in the contours of grace/forgiveness. It is at such a juncture where we ask our Non-Theist friends that, given that they are free and informed, *why* do they so often – being as informed as they are – freely choose to chase after the antithesis of Cosmic Fairness as such relates to Truth and to Reality? Such is asked because even given the absence of eternal conscious torment our Non-Theist friends STILL reject Fairness as a valid truth-metric with respect to interpreting reality.

It is peculiar because our Non-Theist friends know and see and taste the contours of Fairness and Unfairness and STILL they freely embrace as their own primordial ethic all the horrific contours of Cosmic Unfairness as such relates to love’s informed and volitional motions within the proverbial interface amid “Self/Other” The question is why? Whether our own doxastic experience freely evades the truth of “ABC” or not, “ABC” is actually the case, and what is “ABC”? It is, apparently and unfortunately, the fact that some folks knowingly and freely embrace that horrific primordial rock-bottom of Cosmic Unfairness with respect to all things ethical. They in fact do not count Fairness as a Truth-Metric with respect to interpreting reality. Not really. Again the question on the table is simply why that is the case – what possible motive could fuel such a free and informed decision?

The bizarre: Some – quite horrifically – knowingly and freely choose to believe in and value Cosmic Unfairness and even reject Cosmic Fairness as an actual – ontological – truth metric. Now, to whom little is given, little is required. Many are a bit beyond the proverbial boy in Tibet who cannot read. Some are informed and in the light with respect to what they choose to love regarding actual / ontic Unfairness / Fairness in any true end. To whom little light is given – little can-be/is required…..To whom some light is given… some is required… To whom much light…much. The boy in Tibet who cannot read finds quite a different window wherein his own life interfaces with those same Divine Contours of The-True and The-Beautiful, but it seems that, perhaps, our Non-Theist friends in far too many of these discussions are not exactly that boy given the fact that the contours of Love’s Proposal meet them within quite another sort of window.

Step 6 – A Proposal ≠ A Wedding

The short version:

Any proposal of love that isn’t free amid “Self/Other” just isn’t a trinitarian love. While it is the case that Universalism is necessarily possible (…given the volitional nature of love vis-à-vis Christianity’s trinitarian metaphysic…) even as in seamless lucidity Universalism is not necessarily actualized (…given the volitional nature of love vis-à-vis Christianity’s trinitarian metaphysic…). Given, that is, the Decree of Imago Dei. We have to be careful about our definitions because all of “that” of course is the metaphysical landscape of love’s Proposal. Which is necessarily going to be irreducibly different than the metaphysical landscape of love’s Wedding. Which is necessarily going to be irreducibly different than the metaphysical landscape of a Birth. Conflating and/or equating one landscape for another isn’t going to give one the definitions specific to the uniquely Christian metaphysic.

Step 7 – The terms “un-evangelized” and “under-evangelized” arrive:

Of course every person will hear, see, know the Truth under review. First of all, in a moral landscape populated by conscious beings created on the Decree of the Imago Dei it is impossible for moral interfaces to “not exist“. Think about that. As in:

“….Of course, what counts as regarding God as one’s ultimate end requires careful analysis. Someone might have a deficient conception of God and yet still essentially regard God as his ultimate good or end. One way to understand how this might go is, in my view, to think of the situation in terms of the doctrine of the transcendentals. God is Being Itself. But according to the doctrine of the transcendentals, being – which is one of the transcendentals – is convertible with all the others, such as goodness and truth. They are really all the same thing looked at from different points of view. Being Itself is thus Goodness Itself and Truth Itself. It seems conceivable, then, that someone might take goodness or truth (say) as his ultimate end, and thereby – depending, naturally, on exactly how he conceives of goodness and truth – be taking God as his ultimate end or good, even if he has some erroneous ideas about God and does not realize that what he is devoted to is essentially what [theists] call “God.”

Hence the earlier statement of: First of all, in a moral landscape populated by conscious beings it is impossible for moral interfaces to “not exist“.

As for the Means to “The Good“, well, what does Scripture say is the necessary and sufficient? A man’s faith in A or B or C? No. Not at all. The Aqueduct (…faith…)isn’t the Living Water, isn’t Christ. Many are strangely adept at confusing Aqueducts for Water in many settings hence that clarification. It’s clear from Scripture’s definitions that neither Time nor Circumstance nor the death of the physical body nor the presence/absence of missionaries factually constrain the reach of *GOD* with respect to communiques vis-à-vis Christ/Salvation.

At that juncture – either pro or con etc. – it’s not clear that anyone can say more than that. Scripture has examples of God/Grace outreaching all such combinations and permutations.

Think about what that fact does to “definitions and terms”.

That said, what *is* clear is the TRIO of [1] God’s intent and therefore decision with respect to Mankind – or the beloved – vis-à-vis His Own Self-Outpouring for/into the beloved – or Mankind – or, as some say, “the Adamic”, and [2] the fact that the degree of His intention / decision there is matched by the reach of His chosen Means, namely Himself, namely the All-Sufficient, and [3] the obvious fact that as God intends in [1] and therefore reaches in [2] all that is left is this: Will God fail in His reach vis-à-vis the Adamic, vis-à-vis every-man?

Obviously not.

In fact we can even say, given the nature of both time and timelessness, that in and by Christ He already completed, finished, the communique in question with respect to every-man. It’s not like Abraham or the Native American Indian got some sort of a free pass. Animal sacrifices won’t do. Nor will obedience. Nor is Faith enough for faith is merely the Aqueduct through which the Living Water pours. None of it is enough. Why? Because *only* an All-Sufficient Means will do. Centuries of being underexposed to the light cannot change Scripture’s affirmation of the fact that God has overlooked the sins of those centuries and has now come near, in and through Christ, such that that “over-looking” does not sum to a free pass but rather to the intent to reach and the ability to reach and the fact of reaching those same sins in those same centuries which – obviously – interfaces with the individuals in question.

In Lucifer’s Heaven (…which will not be the same as the Adamic’s Heaven given the distinctions forced by the Decree of the Imago Dei…) Lucifer in fact properly confesses, and knows, and believes, and in fact knows correctly and in fact believes correctly, yet such is still not the proverbial “enough” for there is still the volitional being who still volitionally – not necessarily – withholds love’s reciprocity, and therefore has “nothing but” what others have referred to as the “Isolated Self” or as the “Pure I“. So too in like manner (….Scripture tells us….) every-man will at some ontological seam somewhere know, confess, see, comprehend, and therein interface with and intentionally trade pro/con with Truth with respect to (….as A-T metaphysics and Christianity in general often reference God…) “The Good” or “The Beautiful” (…on the one hand…) and one’s own self (….on the other hand…). All men at some ontological seam somewhere interface with the only (…logically possible or necessarily…) All Sufficient Means available. Nothing less will do with respect to *Means* because nothing less *can* do.

Step 8 – A Trio of Facts from The Judge:

When the Judge with Whom we have to do speaks, we discover a trio of facts:

Fact 1: He shouts from high atop His Bench all the affairs of Forgive-For-They-Know-Not, which of course concurs with God’s “overlooking” and “coming near” as alluded to earlier wherein His reach is not limited by either Time or Circumstance. We begin to find a pattern there (…and of course elsewhere…) that volitional, free, and informed motions are where lines emerge vis-à-vis [1] love’s proposal and [2] weddings.

Fact 2: God’s “intent” or God’s “free decision” to Atone/Redeem – or His Decree – with respect to Mankind – or with respect to the beloved – vis-à-vis His Own Self-Outpouring for and into the beloved – or for and into Mankind – is all layered on top of the fact that the degree of His free decision – His Decree – is matched by the reach of His chosen Means, namely Himself, namely the All Sufficient. A. Stanley comments that, “….if someone dies *for* you then they are *for* you….” and God’s demonstrated Decision – Decree – along with God’s demonstrated Reach *cannot* permit some lesser, more tame, less radical “Gospel” than that of Mankind vis-à-vis Every-Man.

It’s uncanny that the fact of Universalism’s “ontic-possibility” cannot be otherwise just as the fact of Man’s free and informed volition inside of love’s relational contours cannot be otherwise. Whereas, Universalism “compelled” just is the reverse of a subtype of Hyper-Calvinism in that each claims that God *forces* the annihilation of that which He Himself has in fact Decreed – which sums to absurdity. It is necessarily the case that the bride-to-be and the groom-to-be factually *can* freely marry, just as it is then necessarily the case that their marriage does not “have to” occur. It seems on all counts that the beautiful freedom called Permanence necessarily entails love’s proposal and as such “Man” necessarily (….given the necessity of love’s proposal….) awakes to find himself before Two outward facing Doors (….whether in Eden or in Privation, but that’s another topic…), before [A] love’s whole amid self/other or else [B] love’s privation within the isolated self.

The short version: Trinitarian processions within love’s timeless reciprocity cannot be otherwise with respect to the fundamental nature of the Imago Dei. Christianity alone has the wherewithal amid self/other to make that necessarily the case. It’s part of the beauty of the content within the term “triune”. It is part of the beauty of self/other in an ontic singularity as that alone dissolves tensions which no other paradigm can.

Fact 3: We come here to the obvious fact that as God intends in His free Decision – in His Decree – and (therefore) as God reaches into Time and Physicality to *do* as He Has Decreed – as the syntax of Incarnation subsumes Time, Physicality, and the Adamic to their bitter ends we are forced to ask this: Will God fail in His reach vis-à-vis the Adamic, vis-à-vis every-man? Obviously not. Insufficiency (or the Adamic) cannot know life but for those immutable and timeless means. Of course, that is true whether Insufficiency (or the Adamic) is found inside of Eden or outside of Eden – hence Two Trees or Two outward facing Doors populate the matrix of both Eden and Privation. Decrees cannot be otherwise – cannot be thwarted.

Step 9 – Why Preach?

As for the Command to go about the world Truth-Telling, to be busy telling folks about the Good News of Christ – about love’s timeless reciprocity – four things:

[A] Truth-Telling is good.
[B] Love’s self-giving is the highest ethic hence the veracity of the Trinitarian metaphysic presses in.
[C] With respect to Ethics, see [B]. With respect to [B], see [A].
[D] Truth-Telling with respect to reality’s highest ethic is, after all, a Command. Therefore: Preach to all men everywhere.

There is only one genre on planet Earth which has offered Mankind a coherent metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility. It is the genre wherein God Himself pours Himself out. Creation is not needed here because of course in Trinity such timeless reciprocity amid love’s self-giving constitutes those Trinitarian processions which are themselves that wellspring of love’s self-outpouring mentioned at the start.

Self-Giving with respect to “Being Itself” forces our hand. The “term” / “definition” with respect to “GOD” thereby referents… well… what? It referents nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being vis-à-vis love’s timeless and self-giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum.

“…..the cross of Christ does not determine the nature of divine love, but rather manifests it, because there is a more original outpouring of God that – without needing to submit itself to the order of sacrifice that builds crosses – always already surpasses every abyss of godforsakenness and pain that sin can impose between the world and God: an outpouring that is in its proper nature indefectible happiness….” (D.B. Hart)

That’s the proverbial umbrella beneath which all other definitions in fact live and move and have – obtain – their “being”.

Step 10 – Non-Theism’s Rejection of Fairness and Embrace of Unfairness:

Where love itself is concerned and where the highest ethic is concerned, such being self-giving love, it is the Non-Theist’s painfully necessary metaphysical reality that all his own explanatory termini are constituted of tediously complex self-negations amid ultimately fictitious “As-If’s” ending in the pains of metaphysical elimination immersed within autohypnosis wrapped up inside of Noble Lies and as such factually fail to do the necessary ontic-work. On (…actual, metaphysical, cosmic, ultimate…) fairness, on justice, on injustice, there are very important differences of course (…and that work will have to be done further downstream…), but, the only players with ANY possible claim to rational (…actual, metaphysical, cosmic, ultimate…) resolution of evil, of injustice, of unfairness, are:

[A] Hell defined as ECT (hence Christianity)

[B] Universalism (hence Christianity)

[C] Conditional Immortality (hence Christianity)

[D] Pantheism via the Hindu (not Spinoza’s pantheism for many reasons, and not Buddhism’s equivocation upon Naturalism)

*IF* our Non-Theists friends actually believed what they are saying about good, evil, justice, and injustice – and cosmic fairness – *THEN* they would be a Christian in, say, the Universalist arena, or else they would be a Hindu, or else they would be in the Christian’s Conditional Immortality arena (…we’re leaving [A] aside as it’s the Non-Theist’s supposed contention…). We need not waste our time with other names for Philosophical Naturalism, such as “Buddhism”, nor with Spinoza’s Pantheism (…for other reasons not unpacked here…), given that Buddhism, summing to Naturalism, necessarily inherits all of PN’s metaphysical baggage, while Spinoza’s pantheism brings other sorts of baggage.

But instead our Non-Theist friends believe “in” and “by” and “of” mutable and contingent normative ethics whereby both in history and in conscience all sorts of evils have been, not tolerated as in Sinai given the fact that Sinai is not God’s Ideal for Mankind, but, rather, said evils have in fact been condoned by the only available stopping points in all such appeals.

Therefore, trying to take the Non-Theist seriously when he shakes his fist with clenched teeth ranting about his “concern” over cosmic fairness is difficult if not impossible.

Before going further with the topic of Cosmic Fairness and [A] through [E] and the Non-Theist’s apparently feigned “concern” over “Cosmic Fairness”, let’s pause and offer a suggestion for our Non-Theist friends who jump into this arena of Cosmic/Ultimate Fairness or Goodness: Try being honest. What does Non-Theistic intellectual honesty look like? Well, like the following five quotes:

“The lack of an ultimate objective scientific grounding for morality can be worrisome. It implies that people with whom we have moral disagreements—whether it’s […insert any evil here…] or schoolyard bullies who beat up smaller children—aren’t wrong in the same sense that it’s wrong to deny Darwinian evolution or the expansion of the universe….But that’s how the world is.” (S. Carroll)

And also:

[2] “Hume was right. We have no objective guidance on how to distinguish right from wrong: not from God, not from nature, not from the pure force of reason itself….Morality exists only insofar as we make it so, and other people might not pass judgments in the same way we do.” (S. Carroll)

And also:

[3] “– Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. -Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. -Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledg’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than for the latter.” (Hume, Treatise of Human Nature 2.3.3.6)

And also:

[4] “Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down. Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like: “Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of view. When I am hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to help me. But really it is all bull___t, so when they need help I can and should avoid putting myself out. There is nothing there for me.” The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer. So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective. “Why should I be good? Why should you be good? Because that is what morality demands of us. It is bigger than the both of us. It is laid on us and we must accept it, just like we must accept that 2 + 2 = 4.” I am not saying that we always are moral, but that we always know that we should be moral. Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what’s to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense.” (Michael Ruse)

And also:

[5] “Pressing on through Alex Rosenberg’s The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, we come to Rosenberg’s treatment of morality. Followed out consistently, Rosenberg says, scientism entails nihilism. As Rosenberg is keen to emphasize, this is not the same as moral relativism or moral skepticism. It is not the claim that moral truth is relative, or that it is real but unknowable. Nor is it the claim that everything is morally permitted. It is a far more radical and disturbing claim than any of these views. Nihilism, as Rosenberg understands it, is the view that there is no such thing as being “morally permitted” or “morally prohibited” in the first place. For there is, given Rosenberg’s scientism, no intrinsic value in the world of the sort that is necessary for morality to be intelligible. Morality — not just commonsense or traditional morality, not just religious morality, but allmorality, morality as such, including any purported secular, liberal, permissive morality — is therefore an illusion.” (…from http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/02/reading-rosenberg-part-vii.html etc…)

Step 11 – Valuing Fairness As A Truth Metric – For Real:

One can find intellectual respect for Hindus or Universalists (Christian) or the Conditional Immortality folks (Christian) who approach “Hell” or “Ends” from their respective directions (….we’re leaving eternal conscious torment aside because it can be done as tension exists either way and because it’s the Non-Theist’s supposed contention…). However, the approaches which the Non-Theist uses in his tired rants on this topic are tediously unthinking. When Atheists attempt this move with Hell it is painfully revealing of their own gross unawareness that they are in fact praising […insert any normative construct…] within their own normative ethics and hence cannot possibly believe in cosmic fairness, nor cosmic injustice, nor cosmic justice, nor that fateful moral bedrock of “The True” for the express truth metric one needs in order to traverse such an ocean is in fact, at the end of the day, freely and knowingly rejected. They then (…therefore…) necessarily embrace as their own primordial ethic a frightening affirmation of Cosmic Unfairness as such relates to love’s informed and volitional motions amid Self/Other (…as opposed to embracing cosmic fairness and logic’s lucidity…). Secondly, on top of that they too often add a horrific layer of ascribing to love that fateful moral landscape of only “really kicking in – for real” once the math of 51% has been traversed vis-à-vis our beloved.

The logical failure of Non-Theism in general when it tries to get into this arena is not only blindingly obvious, but what the Atheist actually ends up conceding, and embracing, is just embarrassing.

Therefore: We invite our Non-Theist friends to choose between [B] through [E].

[A] Christian A — Volitional Hell

[B] Christian B — Conditional Immortality

[C] Christian C – Universalism

[D] Hindu’s Pantheism

Why? Because…..Fairness!

*IF* one believes in fairness, *THEN* one affirms that fairness is a valid truth-referent. Therefore we need only sit and wait for our Non-Theist friends to choose between B, C, D, and E (….we’re leaving [A] aside because we can and because it’s the Non-Theist’s supposed contention…).

*IF* one does not believe that fairness is a valid truth-referent, *THEN* one will not choose B, C, or D (….we’re leaving [A] aside because it can be done as tension exists either way and because it’s the Non-Theist’s supposed contention…).

But, on point of fact, the Non-Theist too often in these discussions doesn’t believe in actual, ontological, irreducible fairness. In which case he and the Christian certainly, absolutely, have a radical difference in what they believe given that the Christian absolutely believes in fairness. Clarification: fairness, that is, in a few senses as, actually, grace from us to one another and grace from God to us is by definition *un*–fair (….but that’s another topic dealing with All-Sufficiency’s self-outpouring and Insufficiency’s self-acquiescence, and so on….).

Step 12 – Closure and Coming In From Out Of The Rain:

Everybody understands (…hopefully…) that the Hindu and Christianity’s various interior discussions have important differences. They do matter. However, that is not the point here.

Rather, the point is on two truth claims:

[1] “I believe in fairness and cannot believe in an unfair Ultimate Actuality. God being, of course, ultimate actuality.”

[2] “Because I believe in fairness, fairness is *therefore* (…since we are not speaking of the fictitious here…) *necessarily* a valid truth-referent such that whatever paradigm truth testifies of will find that fairness just does remain intact – ad infinitum.”

The options are, truly, limited. Finer nuances can be worked out later, once we are well within the walls of what we know houses fairness. For now, the point is simply to get ourselves into something which approximates truth where fairness is concerned, and, thereby, to test the premise of our own claim that we must have fairness. Indeed, that is an interesting arena once inside. The interfaces among Hinduism and Christianity’s various internal discussions are light years ahead of the uninformed premises/conclusions put forth by our Non-Theist friends.

The Non-Theist is (…factually…) forced to live some sort of phosphorescing vapor as it is all a sort of “As-If” approach to reality – as in: We speak As-If so and so is true. We argue about so and so As-If we speak of ontology and not of the ultimately illusory. We try to act As-If so and so isn’t fundamentally fictitious. We run about the stage pretending As-If *fairness* actually does serve as an *actual* truth-finder such that our Non-Theism couldn’t possibly be true but still the same our Non-Theism must be true. We argue against the only possible metaphysical landscapes capable of housing ontic, irreducible, actual fairness As-If fairness testifies against them rather than against our own Non-Theism.

Upon spying all of that confusion from Non-Theism’s paradigmatic termini, the Christian rationally affirms the following:

I reject Atheism / Non-Theism. Why? Because….UNFAIRNESS!

The Non-Theist replies: “Bah Humbug! Just because something isn’t palatable doesn’t make it untrue! What sort of truth-test is THAT! Bah Humbug!”

What was that? Truth tests? Palatable? Unpalatable does not mean untrue? Huh? Isn’t that what the Christian has been telling the Non-Theist all along? Perhaps there’s hope after all.

Conclusion:

Fairness, being an actual truth-referent, leads Reason as truth-finder into only two shadows cast by only two umbrellas as alluded to earlier (Christianity or Hinduism). Once within said shadows, well there is more work to do of course, but not until one is in from out of the rain can one begin to do such work.

End.

Postscript:

Scripture’s Lack of Logical Compulsion Into Eternal Conscious Torment vs. Universalism vs. Conditionalism

With respect to http://disq.us/p/1xov9eg and that lack of logical compulsion there is the following observation of the painfully obvious:

Eternal or Non-Eternal wrt “The Afterlife” per Scripture?

There’s no logical compulsion (in Scripture) into “Most” or “Some” or “All” or “Eternal” or “Non-Eternal” or Etc. (…as per http://disq.us/p/1xov9eg …).

But of course there is a reason God provides no such logical compulsion in His Communique with respect to those vectors, and that is because there is no such compulsion forced upon Adam/Man. In short Scripture/God got it right. That simply comports with the fact that Universalism is necessarily possible but it is not necessarily actualized (…given the volitional nature of love with respect to Proposal v. Groom and Reply v. the Grooms Beloved and so on as described in other comments…).

[1] …we won’t find a logical compulsioneither into or out of “eternal” / “non-eternal” just as…
[2] …we won’t find a logical compulsioninto “almost everyone” / “almost no one”, and, also…
[3] …we *do* find convergence of all sorts of lines there.

Our Non-Theist friends Flip-Flop by first opining “It’s All Eternal Conscious Torment” and then when pressed on that they flip-flop to “Omnipotence should have made it all clear on the Afterlife! Why didn’t He make it clear?!”

Also, even if our Non-Theist friends find those ever-present (…within Christendom…) umbrellas of Conditionalism or Universalism Etc. they still try to rationalize and affirm some sort of final, cosmic, irreducible Indifference over final, cosmic, irreducible Fairness and/or Grace. So why all the emotive heat? Well who knows. One cannot “explain” the move to reject seamless lucidity and embrace contradiction & absurdity

With respect to that lack of logical compulsion see:

http://disq.us/p/1rea1he
http://disq.us/p/1mfey95
http://disq.us/p/1mcd29u
http://disq.us/p/1mbcipw
http://disq.us/p/1uk5mhc
http://disq.us/p/1w4hreq
http://disq.us/p/1xov9eg
See Labeling Love as Asinine at http://disq.us/p/1xv6v4f
See Children In Hell? Huh? at http://disq.us/p/1xu8j5f

[*Note* if Disqus links land at the top of a page ore pause rather than jumping to the target comment try right clicking and opening in a new tab. Also once there try scrolling and/or refreshing. They should land on specific comments.]

A few references of essays followed by meandering threads in comment boxes which may be of help are, perhaps, [1] http://www.str.org/node/42356#.WSPrI2grJPa which is STR’s “Paul’s Solution to the Problem of the Unevangelized Is the Gospel”, and, perhaps, [2] http://www.str.org/node/42493#.WSPq5GgrJPZ which is STR’s “A Gospel without Final Judgment Is Not the Gospel”.

The Interaction Problem

Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to Time & Timelessness. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the First Adam. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the Last Adam.  To attempt the claim of, “Pure Act Becomes” entails an Uphill Ontic with respect to Pure Act (…which is a metaphysical absurdity…).  Pure Act in the Downhill Ontic reveals – Communicates – all ontic possibility. What we find there is Logos in descent and Being’s superseding ontic over both material and non-being.  We will come back to this paragraph and content but first the question of the interaction problem between Mind & Material has some relevance to the nature of any proverbial Uphill Ontic and/or Downhill Ontic within all relations or we can say within all interactions or we can say within all causes and, so, let’s go to that first.

So much of Non-Theism’s bizarre and unavoidable treatment of the perceived Self / “i-am” / Intentionality / and so on when it comes to the First Person Experiences||Perceptions ((…which actually sum to our Epistemic Experience vis-à-vis our Mind and Being and Existence….)) is presented in a way in which any explanatory terminus somehow lands in some flavor of physicalism.

But of course that begs the question. Interaction Problem?

The interaction of God With The World just is an interaction which does not “Violate Physics” and as such there is no such thing as “The Interaction Problem” ((…arguments for that are widely available and are not the focus here…)). The reasons WHY that is the case have to do with Being’s Superseding Ontic over both Material & Non-Being.

We ask “What Interaction Problem?” but the Non-Theist never realizes that BOTH the landscape of Creation Ex Nihilo AND the landscape of the Mind-Body Interaction converge at [Being’s] superseding ontic over both [Material] and [Non-Being]. The SAME Superseding Ontic which forces BOTH the Finite Universe AND any Timed/Tensed Eternal Universe into the Ground of Being Itself and into the Unmoved Will is the SAME Ontic of God’s Relationship to the world AND our own relationship to it. Pure Act vis Being Itself and all of those SAME reasons why [Miracle] does not ((and in fact *cannot*)) “Violate-Physics” are the SAME reasons we find in the “Relationship-And-Interaction” of the “Divine-Mind-And-Contingent-Mind” with ALL ontological vectors of [Material-Full-Stop].

We must not make the mistake of Pantheism or of Idealism or of Physicalism or of Panpsychism here. Sound metaphysical closure is the goal and we find that Relational-Closure in any Uphill Ontic||Downhill Ontic sums to  Interactional-Closure which itself has the uncanny feature of providing  Causal-Closure and THAT is what is needed even as THAT is in fact available. The exclusive ontic real estate of [A] proportionate causality ((…defined further down…)) and [B] concurrentism and [C] the aforementioned “Being’s Superseding Ontic over both Material and Non-Being” reveal the Map & Topography of the Ground of all Ontic-Possibility vis Pure-Act||Being-Itself as all such contours seamlessly converge within that which [Informs] and that which is [Informed].

Because of the unique ontological real estate in the aforementioned Collection ((…Proportionate Causality & Superseding Ontic & Concurrentism & Absolute Consciousness & so on..)) we find the SAME content in [1] WHY God’s [Miracle] does not ((…and in fact cannot…))  “Violate” Physics AND in the “Content” of [Relation] vis-a-vis [Interaction] vis-à-vis Causal-Closure.  Another way of saying it is that because of the aforementioned Collection we find [1] The ((supposed)) “problem” of the Divine Mind moving into [B] Interaction with [3] The World and  when we unpack THOSE three items we discover that there never was a “problem” at all —and — then — from there we find [1] the SAME misunderstandings leading into [2] the SAME  ((supposed)) “problem” of ((in the contingent being/mind)) vis-à-vis [3] the ((supposed problem)) of Mind||Body Interaction. As before, when we unpack THOSE three items we discover that there never was a “problem” at all and for all of the SAME reasons.

“The Nature of God and of His Relationship to the World” is a section in E. Feser’s book titled “Five Proofs of the Existence of God” and there we find an appropriately nuanced approach to Negative & Positive Theology as well as to the triad of univocal vs. equivocal vs. analogical. Eventually in this arena we find that Negative Theology takes a backseat to Positive Theology and the reason why is because of the exclusive ontic real estate of [1] proportionate causality and [2] concurrentism and [3] the aforementioned “Being’s Superseding Ontic over both Material and Non-Being” all seamlessly converging vis-a-vis that which [Informs] and that which is [Informed].

Meanwhile the Non-Theist continues his appeal to the Illusion of Mind||Abstraction and continues his slight of hand with his *Trilateration* by which he tries to “Stack Up” differing “Layers” and thereby “Create” the Irreducible “i-am” vis-à-vis the First Person Experience/Perception vis-à-vis the perceived epistemic experience of the Intentional Self/Mind vis-à-vis “i-am” vis-à-vis “i-reason” vis-à-vis “i-exist” — and so on.

Quote: “….Hence to write many paragraphs about the scientific banishment of teleology from everywhere else in nature while insisting that teleology is real in the case of human beings, and then casually to insinuate that the history of that banishment gives hope that someday a scientific explanation of the teleology of human consciousness will also be possible… to do that is something of a conjuring trick, a bit of sleight of hand….” ((…from https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/03/conjuring-teleology.html …))

The Nature oF Mind

“I-AM” & “i-am” & “l-Exist” & the First Person experience of being||consciousness? The veracity of THAT is the veracity which Non-Theism cannot salvage/retain. The Non-Theist must *demonstrate* BOTH where his own Syllogisms fail to Collapse into a full-on Metaphysical Absurdity AND where the Christian Metaphysic vis-a-vis Being’s Superseding Ontic Over Both Material & Non-Being ((Etc.)) fails to achieve full-on Metaphysical Closure vis-à-vis what D.B. Hart and others describe as “….the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility….”

From another discussion:

You said you wanted to discuss Reliable Arguments || Reliable Proofs WRT “God”. Well okay let’s start with step one:

God or No-God? Mind or Eliminativism?

Terminus of Absolute Consciousness||Being or Terminus of Illusion||Non-Being?

We simply start with the Neonate’s Presupposition-Free-Blank-Slate and move outward into observational reality and outward via perception & science and outward still into natural theology and outward still into Scripture. Alternatively *if* you want a NON-Christian Metaontology that starts WITH rather than WITHOUT presuppositions and that “Leaps-Over//Bypasses” the trio of observational reality & perception & science rather than “Dives-Into” that trio *then* okay fine *but* that’s not a RELIABLE path — at least according to the Christian mindset.

You’re being offered reliable arguments & proofs. Interested? Then interact with & discuss the location of & relevance of the Divine Mind, of Absolute Consciousness, of “Reason Itself” *as* “Being Itself”. Arguments & Syllogisms & Proofs & a Metaphysic housing the nature of Mind — of “Mind Itself” wrt “Being Itself”. You’re dishonest to describe “THAT” as well as content within “the philosophy of mind” as “trolling” when you ASK for reliable evidence, arguments, and proofs. You’re dishonest to ASK for “ABCD” Etc. but then do a 180° flip-flop & REFUSE all replies from the get-go.

We’ve already placed a few basic introductions at your feet. You know — WRT “GOD”. Are you interested? Do you value Lucidity over the [Reductio Ad Absurdum]? Do you value the [Reductio Ad Absurdum] over Lucidity? Let’s try again:

Step 1. God or No-God? Mind or Eliminativism? Terminus of Absolute Consciousness||Being or Terminus of Illusion||Non-Being?

You’re being told your evidence is available. Yet you don’t actually want to interact with it — which is inconsistent and/or dishonest. Or perhaps you actually prefer/expect a series of your own Straw-Men instead? For example something like the following:

Part 1 of 2 https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/10/walter-mitty-atheism.html?showComment=1444541683395&m=1#c5184040431704814012

Part 2 of 2 https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/10/walter-mitty-atheism.html?showComment=1444541694376&m=1#c6385469427809387454

Let’s try again:

Step 1.

• God or No-God?
• Mind or Eliminativism?
• Terminus of Absolute Consciousness||Being or Terminus of Illusion||Non-Being?
• A Few Basic Baby Steps as per https://metachristianity.blogspot.com/2020/01/comments-wrt-realism-vis-vis-meta.html

End.

Emergence & Formation & Non-Reductive Lines

A quote of David Bentley Hart here:

An emergent reality is one that, though remaining ever dependent upon the native properties of the elements composing it, nevertheless possesses new characteristics that are wholly “irreducible” to those properties. But this is certainly false. At least, as a claim made solely about physical processes, organisms, and structures — in purely material terms — it cannot possibly be true. If nothing else, it is a claim strictly precluded by most modern scientific prejudice. From a genuinely “physicalist” perspective, there are no such things as emergent properties in this sense, discontinuous from the properties of the prior causes from which they arise; anything, in principle, must be reducible, by a series of “geometrical” steps, to the physical attributes of its ingredients.

Those who think otherwise are, in most cases, merely confusing irreducibility with identity. Smith, for instance, uses the example of water, which, though composed of the two very combustible elements hydrogen and oxygen, possesses the novel property of extinguishing fire; therefore, says Smith, water “is irreducible to that of which it is composed.” But it is nothing of the sort. Yes, water’s resistance to combustion is not identical with any property resident in either hydrogen or oxygen molecules, but it is most definitely reducible to those special molecular properties that, in a particular combination, cause hydrogen and oxygen to negate one another’s combustible propensities.

A seemingly more promising example adduced by Smith is that of a computer, which (he notes) is composed of silicon, metal, plastic, electrical impulses, and so on, but which possesses functions that are not present in any of its parts and that are qualitatively different from a mere aggregation of the properties of its parts in some sort of total sum. Here, however, Smith compounds his earlier error by failing to notice that what distinguishes a computer’s powers from those individually possessed by its various elements is not any emergent property at all, but rather the causal influence of a creative intellect acting upon those elements from without. Taken as a purely physical phenomenon, nothing that a computer does — as distinct, that is, from what an intending mind does with a computer — is anything more than the mathematically predictable result of all its physical antecedents. At the purely material level, whatever is emergent is also reducible to that from which it emerges; otherwise, “emergence” is merely the name of some kind of magical transition between intrinsically disparate realities.

In any event, I have no great quarrel with Smith. In the end, he is quite correct that a computer is not reducible without remainder to its physical components. He is even more correct in arguing — as is the purpose of his book — that human personality is not reducible to purely physical forces and events. The problem with his argument is merely a matter of the conceptual model of causation that he has adopted.

For, in the end, what reductionism fails to account for, and in fact fails even to see, is not the principle of emergence, but the reality of formal causality. In the case of the computer, for instance, its functions are more than the sum of the properties inherent in its physical constituents because a further, adventitiously informing causality, itself directed by a final causality, has assumed those physical constituents into a purposive structure that in no meaningful sense can be said to have emerged from them. (The captious physicalist, of course, would want at this point to assert that the mind and actions of the computer’s designer are themselves only physical events, and so the computer is still emergent from and reducible to a larger ensemble of material causes; but that is both beside the point and, as it happens, entirely wrong.)

Why is this distinction particularly important? Principally because it seems quite clear to me that there are realities in nature that are indeed irreducible to their physical basis, and that this fact renders materialism — or physicalism, or naturalism — wholly incredible. Existence itself, for what it is worth, is the prime example of an indubitable truth about the world that is irreducible to physical causes (since any physical causes there might be must already exist). But consciousness is perhaps an example more easily grasped. And, just to refresh our memories, we should recall how many logical difficulties a materialist reduction of mind entails.

The most commonly invoked is the problem of qualia, of that qualitative sense of “what it is like” that constitutes the immediate intuitive form of subjectivity, and that poses philosophical difficulties that even the tireless and tortuous bluster of a Daniel Dennett cannot entirely obscure. There is also the difficulty of abstract concepts, which become more dazzlingly difficult to explain the more deeply one considers how entirely they determine our conscious engagement with the world. And of course, there is the problem of reason: for to reason about something is to proceed from one premise or proposition or concept to another, in order ideally to arrive at some conclusion, and in a coherent sequence whose connections are determined by the semantic content of each of the steps taken; but, if nature is mere physical mechanism, all sequences of cause and effect must be determined entirely by the impersonal laws governing the material world. One neuronal event can cause another as a result of physical necessity, but certainly not as a result of logical  necessity; and the connections among the brain’s neurons cannot generate the symbolic and conceptual connections that compose an act of consecutive logic, because the brain’s neurons are connected organically and interact physically, not conceptually.

And then there is the transcendental unity of consciousness, which makes such intentional uses of reason possible and which poses far greater difficulties for the materialist than any mere neurological “binding problem.” Then, of course, there is perhaps the greatest difficulty of all, intentionality, what the great Franz Brentano regarded as the supreme “mark of the mental,” inseparable from every act of consciousness: the mind’s directedness, its “aboutness,” its capacity for meaning, by which it thinks, desires, believes, represents, wills, imagines, or otherwise orients itself toward a specific object, purpose, or end. On the one hand, the mind knows nothing in a merely passive way, but always has an end or meaning toward which it is purposively directed, as toward a final cause; yet, on the other, there is absolutely no intentional reciprocity between the mind and the objects of its intentions (that is, thoughts can be directed toward things, but things, at least taken as purely material events, cannot be directed toward thoughts). Intentionality is finite and concerned with its objects under specific aspects, whereas material reality is merely an infinite catenation of accidental events; and so the specific content of the mind’s intentions must be determined by consciousness alone. One could never derive the specific meaning of a given physical event from the event itself, not even a brain event, because in itself it means nothing at all; even the most minute investigation of its physical constituents and instances could never yield the particular significance that the mind represents it as having. And so on.

Not that there is room here to argue these points. Nonetheless, there are very good reasons why the most consistent materialist philosophers of mind — when, that is, they are not attempting to get around these difficulties with nonsolutions like “epiphenomenalism” or incoherently fantastic solutions like “panpsychism” — have no choice in the end but to deny that such things as qualia or intentionality or even consciousness as such truly exist at all. The heroic absurdism that, in differing registers, constitutes the blazingly incandescent core of the thought of Daniel Dennett, Alex Rosenberg, Paul and Patricia Churchland, and other impeccable materialists of the same general kind follows from the recognition — not very philosophically sophisticated as a rule, but astute nonetheless — that consciousness can exist within the world of nature only if matter is susceptible of formation by a higher causality, one traditionally called “soul.” And the soul, as such a formal cause, is precisely that which cannot simply “emerge.”

End quote ((…from “Emergence & Formation” – by Hart, David Bentley. A Splendid Wickedness and Other Essays…))

Moving Forward Now:

Let’s Move FROM Pure Act In What Must Be A Down-Hill Ontic By Degrees And INTO The Adamic

Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to Time & Timelessness. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the First Adam. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the Last Adam.  To attempt the claim of, “Pure Act Becomes” entails an Uphill Ontic with respect to Pure Act (…which is a metaphysical absurdity…).  Pure Act in the Downhill Ontic reveals – Communicates – all ontic possibility. Logos in descent.

Several overlapping segues via comments follow here and are taken from a few threads relating to the Mind Body Interaction, to Pure Act (God) in the Creative Act (God does not “become”), Mind and Intentionality, and the Principle of Proportionate Causality:

Fist as noted earlier a few baby steps as per https://metachristianity.blogspot.com/2020/01/comments-wrt-realism-vis-vis-meta.html

Further, in the blog post of E. Feser at http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/mind-body-problem-roundup.html the thread which follows it includes the following comments:

1. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/mind-body-problem-roundup.html?showComment=1516363956715#c283233813319391342
2. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/mind-body-problem-roundup.html?showComment=1516364050275#c42193263745976316
3. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/mind-body-problem-roundup.html?showComment=1516364157211#c6136304903345301380
4. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/mind-body-problem-roundup.html?showComment=1516535337883#c3855249211844647789
5. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/mind-body-problem-roundup.html?showComment=1516536978492#c8290865187822662812

A distinct topic which has overlapping areas to those items is in the post of E. Feser at https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/03/conjuring-teleology.html and the thread which follows it includes the following comments, which are re-plays of http://disq.us/p/1mj0his and also of http://disq.us/p/1mj0j0k – themselves labeled as the following:

Intentionality, Mental States, Searle, Networks, and Causal Backgrounds

Reason Itself: The Parasite Upon Irrational Physical Events & The Colony of Memes In the Ecology of Cerebral Cortices

Here’s those replayed in Feser’s thread:

1. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/03/conjuring-teleology.html?showComment=1530728283473#c6793128858268607057
2. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/03/conjuring-teleology.html?showComment=1530728351491#c5452479254916175161
3. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/03/conjuring-teleology.html?showComment=1530728553636#c6099619031571193993
4. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/03/conjuring-teleology.html?showComment=1530729405645#c6175501160704360481
5. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/03/conjuring-teleology.html?showComment=1530729452228#c6453254150407527162

Initial Primer:

“….Hence to write many paragraphs about the scientific banishment of teleology from everywhere else in nature while insisting that teleology is real in the case of human beings, and then casually to insinuate that the history of that banishment gives hope that someday a scientific explanation of the teleology of human consciousness will also be possible… to do that is something of a conjuring trick, a bit of sleight of hand….”

At https://metachristianity.com/absolute-reference-frame-pure-act-incarnation-time/ is “The Absolute’s Reference Frame, Pure Act, Incarnation, Time, The Truly Human, And The Last Adam and it opens with this with respect to Communicates / Communique:

Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to Time & Timelessness. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the First Adam. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the Last Adam.  To attempt the claim of, “Pure Act Becomes” entails an Uphill Ontic with respect to Pure Act (…which is a metaphysical absurdity…).  Pure Act in the Downhill Ontic reveals – Communicates – all ontic possibility. Logos in descent.

As per http://disq.us/p/1u20xbr we’ve the following: God Can Suffer? Feel? As I do? Taste? Smell? As I do? Yes. (…again, see http://disq.us/p/1u20xbr which is also at https://randalrauser.com/2018/07/the-problem-with-a-god-who-suffers/#comment-3994170039 …). The Truly Human houses “I Feel X” & every bit of that noetic frame is Downhill invention, gift, by Pure Act. Logos in descent.

But then that is true of any and all possible worlds – or we can say that such is true of any and all world-contingent reference frames. The attempt to ground the Contingent Conscious Observer in its own Mind – in its own Contingent Reference Frame – just is the absurdity of attempting to define this or that ToE by something less than Totality – something less than the Absolute’s Reference Frame.

One of the goals of this brief primer is to comment that the following content will be more clear if one has already read the above linked items and, also, to comment that the concept of Communique vis-à-vis the Processions within the Trinitarian Life is an entirely different metaphysic than that of Particles In Motion / Physics.

Another goal of the primer is to bring all of “that” into focus “so that” we can make the proverbial connection FROM all of “that” over TO the concept and actions or metaphysic of the Principle of Proportionate Causality.

The other segue which this basic primer serves is to infuse the landscape here with relevant concepts vis-à-vis the Philosophy of Mind as it relates to Non-Theism’s inability to find singularity in its own explanatory terminus with respect to reason and being.  As we push premises through to their breaking points we discover that nothing short of Reason (Itself) as Being (Itself) provides any such terminus.  A few basic inroads there are at https://metachristianity.com/reason-being-non-being-ontological-cul-de-sacs/

End primer.

Recall that we are, here, discussing the overlap and ontic-arrow in-play within, not one or the other, but BOTH the landscape of Creation Ex Nihilo (on the one hand) AND the landscape of the Mind-Body Interaction (on the other hand).  In short we are (…again see the linked essay in the opening primer…) looking at Being’s superseding ontic over both Material and Non-Being.

Important preliminaries are discussed in http://disq.us/p/1lx3d2k which opens with “Mind Body Interaction” – and – then – God can interface seamlessly with nature. Move it. And far more. Etc. And He not only creates said nature, but other natures too. One of the differences between a tree’s nature and the nature of Man is, well, among other things, the immaterial which outreaches the corporeal. God creates that too. He might, and certainly can, even grant it authority, as in the ontic-reach of faculty or capacity over and above. And so on. If interaction is a problem, then God isn’t interacting.

Think about what it is that God creates with respect to proportionate causality. We must not make the mistake of Pantheism or of Idealism here. Perhaps our tendency toward mechanistic physicalist thinking muddies our premises with respect to interaction whereas sound metaphysical causal closure vis-à-vis the exclusive ontic real estate of proportionate causality, concurrentism, and the ground of all ontic-possibility seamlessly and causally amalgamates that which Informs and that which is Informed.

Aquinas on the will as the efficient cause of movement:

Quote: “A thing is said to move in two ways: First, as an end; for instance, when we say that the end moves the agent. In this way the intellect moves the will, because the good understood is the object of the will, and moves it as an end. Secondly, a thing is said to move as an agent, as what alters moves what is altered, and what impels moves what is impelled. In this way the will moves the intellect and all the powers of the soul, as Anselm says (Eadmer, De Similitudinibus). The reason is, because wherever we have order among a number of active powers, that power which regards the universal end moves the powers which regard particular ends. … Now the object of the will is good and the end in general, and each power is directed to some suitable good proper to it, as sight is directed to the perception of color, and the intellect to the knowledge of truth. Therefore the will as agent moves all the powers of the soul to their respective acts, except the natural powers of the vegetative part, which are not subject to our will.” (S.T. I q. 82 art. 4) End quote.

We find in reality the unavoidable “order among a number of active powers” in the real sense of concurrentism [.. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/01/metaphysical-middle-man.html ..] moving from the ontic-proximal to the ontic-distal and Top Down Causation finds all created realities in some real sense within that same state of affairs (concurrentism) and, just the same, moving downhill, we find other (created, fully ontic) beings/wills who in like manner fully “concur” with that which is their own swath of ontic real estate.

How real are those more distal sorts of concurrence?

Given the Decree in question streaming from the wellspring of all proportionate causality, they are absolutely real, and, given said *God* we need not acquiesce to a full throttled Idealism (we are God’s thoughts – full stop) or Absurdity (we do not actually exist) in order to rationally affirm such metaphysical landscapes. Both proximally and distally it is the case that that which informs supersedes that which is informed. The “verb” therein is fully ontic, irreducible and springboards off of the rational ground of all possible being, thereby aborting all collapse into the silly non-starters of deism, pantheism, idealism, or absurdity.

We are speaking here of the Adamic in the sense of the most fundamentally decreed and hence to say of the Last Adam that the Son had no Form and “therefore” was not an individual prior to the creative act of God (Genesis 1:1) or was not in full the proverbial “I” in the full sense “but for” said creative act is to enslave that which informs to that which is informed, which is metaphysical nonsense. Of course that which informs “interacts” with that which is informed and (perhaps) in vectors and degrees which we do not fully appreciate (perhaps) as a consequence of an approach muddied by physicalist thinking rather than by thinking built atop premises of sound metaphysical causation (…speaking of Muddied Physicalist Thinking: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/07/fallacies-physicists-fall-for.html …).

The Necessary, that which informs, surfaces as that which is not static, is not procession-less, but is “living” in the absolute sense and that which ontologically supersedes the informed in a sense akin to concurrentism. Whether proximal or distal (God downward….), such is the nature of all real estate in question.

The only question is this: Can *God* create in this or that created being the ontologically irreducible Will Itself just as He creates in that same sense and in that same created being that which is the ontologically irreducible “Existence Itself“? Given *God* Who is reality’s eternal wellspring with respect to the principle of proportionate causality, the answer is obvious: of course He can.

On the content of proportionate causality, and Decree, and the Imago Dei, and the irreducible “Will/I” and existence itself, the content at http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/first-without-second.html is insightful. A brief excerpt:

“…The idea is perhaps best stated in Platonic terms of the sort Aquinas uses (in an Aristotelianized form) in the Fourth Way. To be a tree or to be a stone is merely to participate in “treeness” or “stoneness.” But to be at all – which is the characteristic effect of an act of creation out of nothing – is to participate in Being Itself. Now the principle of proportionate causality tells us that whatever is in an effect must be in some way in its cause. And only that which just is Being Itself can, in this case, be a cause proportionate to the effect, since the effect is not merely to be a tree or to be a stone, but to be at all…”

Necessary Being Itself affords that which nothing else can: ex nihilo. If God cannot grant to non-entity that which is His Alone to grant (existence, being, will, choosing, and so on), well then we, you and I, the created beings, do not “actually” exist as that which is other than God and we are then spiraling once again amid that collapse into the ontic-silliness of the non-starters of deism, pantheism, idealism, or absurdity even as a full-blown Idealism and/or Solipsism lurk in the shadows.

In a roundabout way Feser’s essay (and the com-box in particular) at http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/11/averroism-and-cloud-computing.html are insightful in a few ways here.

I’ve never seen one argument, not one, ever, which supports any good reason for the “concern” that there is *not* that which is the ontologically irreducible “immaterial will“, that which outlives the corporeal vis-à-vis survivalism trumping corruptionism. At the end of the day, all our definitions force the reality of that which exists without any material “stuff”.

Again, I’ve never seen one argument, not one, ever, which supports any good reason for the “concern” that there is *not* that which is the ontologically irreducible “immaterial will“, that which outlives the corporeal vis-à-vis survivalism trumping corruptionism. At the end of the day, all our definitions force the reality of that which exists without any material “stuff”.

The essay on “SURVIVALISM, CORRUPTIONISM, AND MEREOLOGY” by David Oderberg at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUieTVFfdl8xQjBnU2M/ agrees with Feser and the vast majority of Christians.

The syntax of incarnation of course is extreme should we demand or expect *not* sound metaphysical causal closure *but* instead in muddied thinking demand that the stuff of contingent and mutable causations account for the whole-show. As Sean Carroll’s “Poetic Naturalism” alludes to, the illusory awaits all syntax given such paltry means. What the First Adam *is* and what the Last Adam *is* dissolves any rational concerns about “interaction”.

Christianity just is ontology’s Extreme Dualism as it, and no other, weds the Necessary and Contingent, weds that which Informs and that which is Informed within the Imago Dei amid Groom/Bride in a fashion that is unparalleled by any other such interface/interaction. But then there is only one, and not many, such Decrees from He Who is the wellspring of all proportionate causality.

We are not Angels, nor Galaxies, nor Creatures With Many Eyes around the Throne of God. We are “the Adamic”, that which is predestined for nothing less than the semantics of incarnation (Scotus arrives on scene perhaps) as a wedding is Decreed. Such cannot be defined by “other decrees” with respect to “other created beings”. Not in whole at least. When the body is dust, we yet persist, yet motion, yet see, though in some real sense we are to put on the incorruptible through the corporeal’s (Body’s / Physicality’s) resurrection as the Whole Man soundly, finally, traverses all possible “interaction” amid Bride/Groom.

Physics in contrast to Communique: Within the Trinitarian Life we find that Communicate transcends efficient and final causality as that which is caused does not exist before in Act, whereas that which is communicated exists before in Act, as described in Garrigou-Lagrange’s “The Trinity and God the Creator”. Once again important preliminaries are discussed in http://disq.us/p/1lx3d2k  which opens with “Mind Body Interaction”.

Sean Carroll maps all such causation in his essay on Top Down Causation into the materialist’s only option of that which is fundamentally, or irreducibly, or ultimately, or cosmically the illusory at http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/08/01/downward-causation/ as any hope of ontological emergentism ends in nothing more than syntax, a kind of Wittgenstein-esc language game. Given Non-Theism’s anemic metaphysical means/ends, such is forced to do so where causation is concerned. Causal closure just is annihilation of the “I/Will” in question (and far, far more) given the physicalist’s creed.

Segues:

• http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/09/mind-body-interaction-whats-problem.html
• http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/mind-body-problem-roundup.html
• http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/03/so-what-are-you-doing-after-your-funeral.html

Proportionate Causality, Superseding Ontic, & Interaction:

Another way of saying much of this is to say that the “problem” of the Divine Mind ← → Interaction ← → The World is to say that “that” just is the “problem” of (in the contingent being) the Mind/Body interaction. It’s a bit tedious (perhaps) but, as a rough sketch, something like this:

“The Nature of God and of His Relationship to the World”

In E. Feser’s book titled “Five Proofs of the Existence of God” we find an appropriately nuanced approach to Negative & Positive Theology as well as to the triad of univocal vs. equivocal vs. analogical.

There are nine hits in the search of the Kindle book for the word “negative” many of which zero in on Negative Theology not being the WHOLE story. Also, much of that is in the chapter titled “The Nature of God and of His Relationship to the World”. That chapter also unpacks the univocal vs. equivocal and the analogical modes of reference. Two examples of those two approaches:

“……affirmative rather than negative claims? While negative theology is part of the story of God’s nature, then (since attributes like immateriality and immutability obviously tell us what God is not), it cannot be the whole story, or it would undermine the very arguments that led us to affirm that there is a God in the first place…..

…and…

“…..confining ourselves to univocal and equivocal terms would make it impossible to assign any positive content to what we say about God. We would be left with agnosticism, or (if we cannot even explain what we mean by the claim that God exists) even atheism. Indeed, it would not be clear that we are saying anything with any meaning at all. Yet the proofs for the existence of God that we have considered seem perfectly intelligible and give us positive knowledge about God’s existence and nature. The way to resolve this impasse is to see that there is a third use of language, the analogical use, which is motivated independently of the problem of theological language but is readily applicable to that problem. We can make literal, positive statements about God and his nature by applying the analogy of attribution and the analogy of proper proportionality…..”

Those two excepts are obviously given without the large swath of *context* which the book offers.

Given the fact that our Non-Theist friends lack in their causal means that which causally sums to the Principle of Proportionate Causality (…the PPC for brevity …see definitions at http://disq.us/p/1lwnawv …) then when it comes to God’s Creative Act with respect to being and with respect to volition and with respect to intentionality they are simply at a loss as to how to unpack causality without reducing all of reality to that of the Grand-Automaton (or the illusory – and so on).

We come to this basic word-picture:

Non-Being ← → Proportionate Causality ← → Being ← → Pre-Eden Adamic ← → Proportionate Causality vis-à-vis Dualism ← → Edenic/Adamic (…proposal not wedding…) ← → [A] Privation or else ← → Proportionate Causality ← → [B] God’s Ideal (…wedding not proposal…)

It’s obviously more layered than that, but, it seems so common of an error to conflate non-identicals that it seems worth pointing out the general nature of things with respect to “causal content” and so on.

Proportionate Causality and the Positive Metaphysic (as opposed to “only” a negative theology) arrives again and again in this interface. One wonders whether God *can* and in fact *did* create a being in His Own Image with respect to the principle of proportionate causality *itself*. After all, we rationally affirm that Being Itself, as in God Who is Immaterial, both can and does interact with matter/material, and the reasons why He can are obvious given Being’s superseding ontic over both Material and Non-Being.

And *we* of course necessarily live and move and have and find our own being-itself from the *only* metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility, namely, “Being Itself / GOD“.

I am there using “being itself” to refer to what the Self is in contrast to “Matter”, which requires moving carefully. On the PPC there was the prior of Non-Being, and, then, Being which is not “to be a tree” as Feser notes but rather to be at all. Two interesting facts arise here. First, clearly that sense finds the ontic of be-*ing* and it is *different* than “a tree“. Secondly, it is that same dividing line which grants, and forces, the affairs of Being’s superseding ontic over both Material and Non-Being mentioned earlier as we approach the rational affirmation of the Immaterial God seamlessly interacting with the Material.

There’s an interface there of ontic distincts, or of ontic non-identicals, and we seem to see the seamlessness of that interface when it comes to God/World, which just *is* the interface of “The Divine Mind / World” but, then, we seem to “pull back” when it comes to “Our Mind / World”, which is curious. Again, the reason that is curious is Being’s superseding ontic over both Material and Non-Being.

The following “Copy/Paste” is added for context as it helps elucidate a few key nuances which are in play here. It’s a bit long and it will close with “End Copy/Paste” so as to avoid confusion it’s [bracketed] interlude here. Note that it is a rough paraphrase of a discussion and so the “you” and “we” and “my” and so on are for the most part as per the original flow of the discussion.

BEGIN COPY/PASTE:

A Question For TULIP

Let’s say there is no created World. And let’s say that God is going to create an agent. The question is CAN God create the volitional being who in fact CAN freely choose within this or that finite [set] of options which God Decrees/Creates?  Is that something God CAN do?

You say that in me and you there is no such possibility as the Rock-Bottom of “The Volitional Seat That Is The Self” and the reason (you say) is because every choice is the result of a preference and every preference is the result of some other preference and that becomes an Infinite Regress. Now, you do not tell us why you Ground the Rock-Bottom of “The Volitional Seat That Is The Self” in me and in you instead of in God.

1. IF the Beginning/End of the Rock-Bottom of “The Volitional Seat That Is The Self” (…or our very being itself….) was me or you, the created self, THEN you would be correct (…well, actually you’d still be wrong given Aquinas’ earlier quote regarding The-Will heading up the Ordering-Of-Powers, and therein such truly is “The-Seat” — singular — and not trillions in an infinite regress….).

2. IF the Beginning/End of the Rock-Bottom of “The Volitional Seat That Is The Self” (…or our very being itself….) is in fact GOD vis-à-vis The Uncreated Volitional Self, well THEN you are incorrect.

And if fact “1” does collapse into a metaphysical absurdity whereas “2” is nothing less than a metaphysical necessity.

“……The principle of proportionate causality tells us that whatever is in an effect must be in some way in its cause.  And only that which just is Being Itself can, in this case, be a cause proportionate to the effect, since the effect is not merely to be a tree or to be a stone, but to be at all……”

Occasionalism is fallacious, and it is where you are trying to land as your terminus of explanation. Occasionalism is not the right-thinking landing zone or terminus for First Cause premises and, so, therefore, it is also not the right-thinking terminus of your attempt to navigate causation wrt God as First Cause. Three resources on that:

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/first-without-second.html

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/01/metaphysical-middle-man.html

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-pantheism-and-deism.html

Please keep the concept of, “God-Causes-To-Exist-The-Reality-That-Is-ABCDEF” in mind as we move along here.

Two Areas Where Your Infinite Regress Falls Down:

First: As noted above we found that IF the Beginning/End of the Rock-Bottom of “The Volitional Seat That Is The Self” (…or our very being itself….) is in fact GOD vis-à-vis The Uncreated Volitional Self, well THEN you are incorrect.

Second: As we briefly described, we can just GRANT you your terminus in the Created Self for even then you’d still be wrong given Aquinas’ earlier quote regarding The-Will heading up the Ordering-Of-Powers, and therein such truly is “The-Seat” — singular — and not trillions in an infinite regress. All that is needed at that point is the Proper & Proportionate Cause & Ground for such an Ontic Singularity. Do we have such a Hard-Stop? Well of course:

God Creates/Gifts and God Grounds and God Continuously Sustains the very same Volitional Seat That Is The Self, or, the very same Capacity Of Choice (and so on) which we are discussing. There *is* a Hard Stop. That *is* what we in fact *mean* when we say, “….the ontology of love or of being or of will or of reason or of intentionality…” and Etc. with respect to the Imago Dei. To say that my capacity for X finds its Height / Width / Breadth and begins and ends in “Me” and not “God” is to claim a metaphysical absurdity. Definitions continue onward and upward with respect to Grounding such that as with being so too with will — nether suffers the infinite regress.

God is in fact Being Itself. The Hard Stop of our own *being is nothing less than Being Itself (…on the Principle of Proportionate Causality…). Only that which just is Being Itself, or only that which just is Free Will Itself – or only that which just is Intentionality Itself – can in this case be a cause proportionate to the effect, since the effect is not merely the illusion of Volition-Exists but in fact Volition-Exists-Hard-Stop. It’s all Ex Nihilo and whether we replace Being with Choice (….and so on, and so on…) does not change what is happening there in the Creative Act vis-à-vis the difference between Actual vs. Illusion at the end of the Creative Act. Enter a key phrase: Imago Dei.  BTW are our thoughts determined too on your view or is Reason in fact Intentional?

God freely chooses to Create/Not-Create. And, just the same, the Ground-Zero or Hard-Stop of the Created Intentional Self or of the Seat that is the Self, is the Uncreated Intentional Self  “just as” the Ground-Zero or Hard Stop of the Created Agent’s *being* is in fact Being-Itself.

Therefore, two questions:

A. When God creates our very being Ex Nihilo is it not quite “Real”?

B. When God creates our very volition Ex Nihilo is it not quite “Real”?

Can you justify Granting the Principle of Proportionate Causality to one but not the other with respect to God Creating, Gifting, Grounding, and Continually Sustaining? Well no and that is one reason why it is the case that when you insist, “God cannot create the Causal Agent capacitated to openly choose amid some finite [set] of actual (ontic) options” you have not shown your conclusion to be “necessarily true”. Yet for some reason you’ve not justified for us why we find you saying, “God-Cannot-Create-And-Ground-That-Intentionality-Amid-That-Set-Of-Options”. You’ve not shown us how your “Cannot” is [necessarily true]. Whereas, we see quite clearly how it is [necessarily possible] that “God-Can” create such a capacity in the Imago Dei given the Principle of Proportionate Causality and the fact that Occasionalism is not where First Cause thinking rightly terminates.

One must differentiate between:

Arguments based on First Cause Premises (rational) and

Arguments based on Occasionalism (fallacious).

You have so far affirmed that God can cause to exist “a-choice” or “one-choice” in the Created Agent. However, you’re muddying up First Cause termini and ignoring the actual question:

CAN God Create the Intentional Agent who can, like Him, freely choose (….amid whatever created and finite [SET] of options God Decrees to exist and so on….)?

It seems you are forced to deny the Principle of Proportionate Causality and argue that it is [Necessarily The Case] that God [Cannot Create Such An Agent Amid Such Options].

Whereas, “just-as”….

….our own “Hard Stop” (…or the metaphysical fountainhead…) of our own being “just-is” Uncreated Being-Itself, so also then….

….our own “Hard Stop” of our own Free-Volition “just-is” the Uncreated Intentional Self….

….and so “God-Can” is [Necessarily Possible].

….just because we can’t freely choose among the Infinite Set of All Ontological Possibilities (….like God who in fact IS the metaphysical Wellspring of all ontological possibility…) doesn’t *necessitate* that we’re limited to one choice & God can’t Create/Will/Decree a (real) SET of (real) options.

Let’s try a Yes or No this time: The question is CAN God create the volitional being who in fact CAN freely choose within this or that finite [set] of Decreed options? Is that something God CAN do?

You said earlier the following:

“…..I would make a distinction between an “ultimate” cause and an “immediate” cause. Our wills can be the immediate cause of a decision, given multiple options. In that sense they are free. But they cannot be the ultimate (uncaused) cause, since they are created (not uncaused)……”

Perhaps but then there is a distinction and Occasionalism is false. Hence (then) the “Adamic” in Eden is free to choose amid options — which means just that and nothing less — that the Adamic in Eden is free to choose amid options. Then, since Occasionalism is False we find that “God Caused My-Choice or Adam’s Sin” is also False. But that assumes that one does not backtrack from one’s earlier rejection of Occasionalism.

A. “God Caused My Free Choice To Exist”

…is not Identical with…

B. “God Caused Me To Make My Choice”

Well not unless one affirms Occasionalism.  To blur those two beyond a full-on ontic / causal distinction requires you to go about grounding Adam’s [A—Z] in Adam instead of in God as the final terminus. God’s Capacity for Choice IS the Hard Stop you keep trying to turn into an infinite regress.  Recall that there is no infinite regress in God’s Will. Hence the being of the Imago Dei is 1. Actual rather than illusion and 2. itself void of an infinite regress. The fact that the Imago Dei is Finite and not Infinite brings in a matter of Degree and of Reach — not of actuality and of hard-stop. How can ANY X find its terminus of existence outside of God? Or in itself? What do we “mean” when we say “….the ontology of love or of being or of will or of reason or of intentionality…” with respect to the Imago Dei? Well let’s go further and focus the lens:

First, once again: How can ANY X find its terminus of existence outside of God? Or in itself? Secondly: Since Uncreated Intentionality is the Ground & Hard Stop of the Ontic v. the Imago Dei’s Intentionality, there cannot be an infinite regress in the Imago Dei’s intentionality.  Only Occasionalism makes that Grounding error. There’s just more to Occasionalism than you’ve mentioned so far so keep that file open for new information.

God Creates/Gifts and God Grounds and God Continuously Sustains the very same Capacity Of Choice we are discussing. There *is* a Hard Stop. That *is* what we in fact *mean* when we say, “….the ontology of love or of being or of will or of reason or of intentionality…” and Etc. with respect to the Imago Dei. To say that my capacity for X finds its Height / Width / Breadth and begins and ends in “Me” and not “God” is to claim a metaphysical absurdity. Definitions continue onward and upward with respect to Grounding. There is an infinite regress of preferences in my own will IF I am my own explanatory terminus. However, as with being so too with will — nether suffers the infinite regress.  One more time for emphasis:

God Creates/Gifts and God Grounds and God Continuously Sustains the very same Capacity Of Choice we are discussing. There *is* a Hard Stop. That *is* what we in fact *mean* when we say, “….the ontology of love or of being or of will or of reason or of intentionality…” and Etc. with respect to the Imago Dei.

The Ordering Of God’s Will

When it comes to Eden we find that a Noble Lie told by The Necessary Being (….in Eden to Adam about being free to eat of all but one tree…) isn’t a valid option. The Ordering Of God’s Will (…see http://disq.us/p/1wroxql ….) tells us simply (…and it is very simple…) the following:

Should God Will/Decree “Square” in this or that Possible World well then it is necessarily the case “Round” is impossible unless and until God suspends or reverses His Will/Decree in said Possible World.

That Same Ordering of God’s Will (then) with respect to our own capacity of choice amid this or that finite [SET] of options precludes the possibility of “Every Event Is God’s Will” should we in fact choose (for example) Evil when God’s First Order of Willing is that we as we as Free Agents choose Good, and so on. We find, given the Intentional Adamic, that there are equally possible worlds (….Privation, Eternal Life…) and in the Decree of the Imago Dei God in fact Wills/Decrees (….in all those intersections…) that which is a Singularity.   As per http://disq.us/p/1n9y1rc with:

IF In Fact as per Ontic-Fact the “Edenic Adamic” is free to do *otherwise* then in fact that otherwise cannot sum to Ontic Non-Entity nor can it sum to a kind of Ontic Noble Lie told by the Necessary Being.  In fact God/Omnipotence cannot create a being that is in fact free to do Non-Entity or in fact free to do Non-Being. Any epistemic which cannot contain Eden and Eden’s possible worlds has, from the start, a suspicious ontic already in jeopardy.

WRT Cyrus & Isaiah 45:7 and “God Creates Evil” and so on, see:

1. Abraham, Faith, Divine Command Theory, & Basic Reading Comprehension – at http://disq.us/p/1yh7bgt
2. Abraham, Isaac, and God’s Foreknowledge – at http://disq.us/p/1yhjehw
3. Abraham, Isaac, Kierkegaard’s Paradox, Cyrus, & Isaiah 45:7 – at http://disq.us/p/1yhjyrv
4. ??God Emotionally Tortured Abraham??  – at  http://disq.us/p/1yhkd08
5. Divine Command Theory Collapses Into A Metaphysical Absurdity – at https://metachristianity.com/divine-command-theory-collapses-into-a-metaphysical-absurdity/

END COPY/PASTE.

To maintain flow, recall that prior to the copy/paste we left off with the following two paragraphs:

I am there using “being itself” to refer to what the Self is in contrast to “Matter”, which requires moving carefully. On the PPC there was the prior of Non-Being, and, then, Being which is not “to be a tree” as Feser notes but rather to be at all. Two interesting facts arise here. First, clearly that sense finds the ontic of be-*ing* and it is *different* than “a tree“. Secondly, it is that same dividing line which grants, and forces, the affairs of Being’s superseding ontic over both Material and Non-Being mentioned earlier as we approach the rational affirmation of the Immaterial God seamlessly interacting with the Material.

There’s an interface there of ontic distincts, or of ontic non-identicals, and we seem to see the seamlessness of that interface when it comes to God/World, which just *is* the interface of “The Divine Mind / World” but, then, we seem to “pull back” when it comes to “Our Mind / World”, which is curious. Again, the reason that is curious is Being’s superseding ontic over both Material and Non-Being.

That is all rough and hurried, but, it may offer something on the question of Consciousness or the Mind/Body interaction. Recall again that in the Trinitarian Life – and therefore at Reality’s Irreducible Substratum it is the case that Communicate transcends efficient and final causality as that which is caused does not exist before in Act, whereas that which is communicated exists before in Act, as described in Garrigou-Lagrange’s “The Trinity and God the Creator”.

It is the Trinitarian metaphysic alone which – at the end of the proverbial Ontic-Line – whether one travels Upstream or Downstream – provides lucidity given that there alone is reason’s last reply – reason’s final terminus – found amid the Wider, Thicker Heavy-Meta of Communique as opposed to the Narrower, Thinner Physics.

Our progressions upstream and downstream in fact retain Mind and Reason Itself hence we are rational to stand firm on reason’s last reply – on reason’s final terminus. Or, to say it another way, any and all Midstream progressions cannot retain coherence should one’s Upstream and Downstream termini finally forfeit the proverbial Means & Ends thereof.

Lastly, the items from https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/03/conjuring-teleology.html which were listed at the start (…taken from http://disq.us/p/1mj0his and from http://disq.us/p/1mj0j0k …).

Intentionality, Mental States, Searle, Networks, and Causal Backgrounds

Reason Itself: The Parasite Upon Irrational Physical Events & The Colony of Memes In the Ecology of Cerebral Cortices

Quote:

“This sort of theory proposes that the meaning or intentional content of any particular mental state (a belief, desire, or whatever) derives from the role it plays within a system of mental states, all of which, as we’ve seen, seem logically interrelated in the manner briefly discussed in chapters 3 and 6, since to have any one mental state seems to require having a number of others along with it. The idea is that what gives the belief that Socrates is mortal the precise meaning it has is that it is entailed by other beliefs meaning that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man, that together with a belief meaning that all mortals will eventually die it entails a belief meaning that Socrates will eventually die, and so on. If we think of beliefs, desires, and the like as a vast system of logically interconnected elements, the theory holds that each element in the system gets its meaning from having precisely the place in the system it has, by bearing exactly the logical and conceptual relations it bears to the other elements. (More precisely, it is the objects of beliefs, desires, and the like — sentences of Mentalese according to the CRTT, or, more generically and for those not necessarily committed to the CRTT, “mental representations” of some other, non-sentential sort — that bear meaning or intentional content. But for the sake of simplicity, we can ignore this qualification in what follows.)

There seems to be a serious problem with the conceptual role approach, namely that even if it is granted that mental states have the specific meaning or content they do only because of their relations to other mental states, this wouldn’t explain how mental states have any meaning at all in the first place. That a particular belief either implies other beliefs or is implied by them presupposes that it has some meaning or other: nothing that was completely meaningless could imply (or be implied by) anything. The very having of logical and conceptual relations assumes the prior existence of meaning, so that no appeal to logical and conceptual connections can (fully) account for meaning. Moreover, if belief A gets its content from its relations to beliefs B and C, and these get their content from their relations to beliefs D, E, and F, we seem destined to be led either in a circle or to an infinite regress. Either way, no ultimate explanation of intentional content will have been given. To provide such an explanation thus inevitably requires an appeal to something outside the network, something which can impart meaning to the whole. John Searle, who endorses something like the conceptual role theory of meaning, acknowledges that logical and conceptual relations between mental states cannot be the whole story if circularity or infinite regress is to be avoided. He therefore postulates that the entire “Network” of intentional mental states (he capitalizes Network to signify its status as a technical term) rests on what he calls a “Background” of non-intentional capacities to interact with the world around us. We have, for example, such intentional mental states as the desire to have a beer and the belief that there is beer in the refrigerator, and these mental states do, in part, get the specific meaning they have via their relations to each other and to other mental states in the broader Network.

But ultimately these mental states, and the Network as a whole, function only against a Background of capacities, such as the capacity to move about the world of physical objects, pick them up, manipulate them, and so on. This capacity is not to be identified with the belief that there is a real external world of physical objects; for if it were such an intentional mental state, then it would have to get its meaning from other mental states, and thus couldn’t serve as part of the Background that ends the regress of mental states. The capacity in question is rather something unconscious and without intentionality, a way of acting rather than a way of thinking. One acts as if one had the belief in question, though one in fact does not. While this capacity could in principle become a conscious, intentional mental state — one could come to have the explicit belief that there is a real world of external physical objects that I can manipulate and move about within — this would mean that this particular capacity has moved out of the Background and into the Network, and now rests on some other unconscious, non-Intentional Background capacity or way of acting.

There is, in short, always some set of capacities or other that comprises the Background (even if it is not always the same set for different people, or even for the same person at different times), and these capacities serve to ground the Network of intentional mental states. There is much to be said for Searle’s hypothesis of the Background, but it seems that it cannot save the conceptual role theory, for to speak of a “non-intentional capacity for acting” is to speak ambiguously. Consider that when you act without the conscious belief that there is an external world of physical objects, but merely manifest a capacity to interact with the world of physical objects, your capacity isn’t non-intentional in the same sense that an electric fan’s capacity to interact with the world of physical objects is non-intentional. You behave “as if’ you had a conscious, intentional belief in a world of physical objects, but of course you don’t, because it typically never even occurs to you either to believe or doubt that there is such a world: you just interact with the world, period. The fan also behaves “as if” it believed there was a world of external physical objects (that it “wants” to cool down, say); but of course it doesn’t really have this belief (or any wants) at all. In the case of the fan, this is not because it just hasn’t occurred to the fan to think about whether there is such a world, for the fan isn’t capable of such thoughts; it is rather because, strictly speaking, the fan doesn’t really “act” or “behave” at all, as opposed to just making movements. And the reason we don’t regard it as acting or behaving in the same sense we do is precisely because it doesn’t have intentionality — it is a dumb, meaningless, hunk of steel and wires.

We on the other hand don’t merely make physical movements: the waving of your hand when your friend enters the room isn’t just a meaningless movement, but an action, the action of greeting your friend. If it were just a meaningless movement — the result of a seizure, say — we wouldn’t count it as an action at all; it wouldn’t in that case be something you do, but rather something that happened to you. The fan, however, is capable of making nothing but meaningless movements. For something genuinely to behave or act as we do requires that it does have intentionality — action and behavior of the sort we exhibit are themselves manifestations of intentionality, and thus presuppose it. But in that case, an appeal to a “capacity for action” cannot provide the ultimate explanation of intentionality.

We need to know why our capacities for action are different from the mere capacities for movement that a fan exhibits. Merely noting, à la Searle’s Background hypothesis, that our capacities are non-intentional ways of acting cannot help, for that they are genuinely ways of acting is precisely what needs to be explained. Indeed, since they are ways of acting, they cannot be literally non-intentional, for if they were, they would no more be true ways of acting than are the capacities of an electrical fan. A capacity for action is, as a matter of conceptual necessity, an intentional capacity. In fairness to Searle, it isn’t clear that he intends his hypothesis of the Background to serve as a complete explanation of intentionality. His aim may be just to draw out some implications of the fact that mental states are logically and conceptually related to one another in a Network.

The point, though, is that his way of avoiding the circularity or regress that threaten any conceptual role theory cannot be appealed to in order to vindicate such a theory as a complete theory of meaning — and that it may even be incoherent, if Searle holds that the capacities and ways of acting that form the Background are literally devoid of intentionality.” (by Edward Feser)

End quote.

And then the second of those two:

Quote:

“In any event, my topic is not really the philosophy of mind, though by this point it may seem as if I have forgotten that. I am concerned not simply with the mystery of consciousness but with the significance of that mystery for a proper understanding of the word “God.” I admit that I have taken my time in reaching this point, but I think defensibly so. My claim throughout these pages is that the grammar for our thinking about the transcendent is given to us in the immanent, in the most humbly ordinary and familiar experiences of reality; in the case of our experience of consciousness, however, the familiarity can easily overwhelm our sense of the essential mystery. There is no meaningful distinction between the subject and the object of experience here, and so the mystery is hidden by its own ubiquity. One extremely good way, then, to appreciate the utter strangeness of consciousness — the hither side, so to speak, of that moment of existential wonder that wakens us to the strangeness of all things — is to consider the extraordinary labors required to describe the mind in purely material terms. We have reached a curious juncture in the history of materialism, which seems to point toward a terminus that is either tragic or comical (depending on where one’s sympathies lie).

For a number of “naturalist” theorists it has become entirely credible, and even logically inevitable, that the defense of “rationalistic” values should require the denial of the existence of reason. Or, rather, intellectual consistency obliges them to believe that reason is parasitic upon purely irrational physical events, and that it may well be the case that our nonexistent consciousness is only deluded in intentionally believing that there is such a thing as intentional belief. Or they think that what we have mistaken for our rational convictions and ideas are actually only a colony of diverse “memes” that have established themselves in the ecologies of our cerebral cortices. Or whatever. At such a bizarre cultural or intellectual juncture, the word “fanaticism” is not opprobrious, but merely descriptive. We have reached a point of almost mystically fundamentalist absurdism. Even so, what is really astonishing here is not that some extreme proponents of naturalist thought accept such ideas but that any person of a naturalist bent could imagine that his or her beliefs permit any other conclusions.

If nature really is what mechanistic metaphysics portrays it as being, then consciousness is, like being itself, super naturam; and that must be intolerable to any true believer in the mechanistic creed. Materialism is, as I have said, the least rationally defensible and most explanatorily impoverished of metaphysical dogmas; but, if materialism is one’s faith, even reason itself may not be too great an offering to place upon its altar. If one is to exclude the supernatural absolutely from one’s picture of reality, one must not only ignore the mystery of being but also refuse to grant that consciousness could possibly be what it self-evidently is.” (David Bentley Hart, “The Experience of God”).

End quote.

Fixed Chains, Choice, Determinism, the Intentional Self, & Proportionate Causality

Proponents of Divine Determinism work hard to avoid two key facts:

1— God cannot deny Himself — Yet He Chooses. The [Immutable Fixed Chain of Immutable Properties / Fixed Desires] that “is” [God’s Will] does not compel One-Choice. This Immaterial Causality vis-à-vis the Intentional Self sharply diverges from Material Causality vis-à-vis Chains Of Fixed Properties.

2— The Principle of Proportionate Causality and how that funds, sources, grounds, and sustains the Created Agents Intentional Self.

Proponents of Divine Determinism often reply by re-writing the above into something like this:  “…..So you are saying that God caused to exist in us uncaused preferences, uncaused interests, uncaused desires, uncaused motivations, and uncaused inclinations. But all of those are not uncaused, but are in fact caused-to-exist as what they are, which is Immutable Fixed Chain of Immutable Properties / Fixed Desires…”

But of course in God we find BOTH 1. The express embrace of that [Immutable Fixed Chain of Immutable Properties / Fixed Desires] AND 2. the express debunking on what that is supposed to mean (per Divine Determinism) vis-à-vis Free Choice Amid Ontic Options as, all over again, we find that God cannot deny Himself — cannot deny His Own Yet [Immutable Fixed Chain of Immutable Properties / Fixed Desires] — AND YET He Freely Chooses. That should not be possible given the premises/conclusions of the Divine Determinism. The [Immutable Fixed Chain of Immutable Properties / Fixed Desires] that “is” [God’s Will] does not compel One-Choice.

Immaterial Causality vis-à-vis the Intentional Self sharply diverges from Material Causality vis-à-vis Chains Of Fixed Properties.

The Principle of Proportionate Causality demonstrates BOTH 1. Divine Determinism’s [Cannot Deny Own Nature Etc.] / [Immutable Fixed Chain of Immutable Properties / Fixed Desires] AND 2. the Intentional Self housing Free Choice Amid Ontic Options.

The analysis of Divine Determinism has left out something fundamental vis-a-vis how we (…the Created Adamic…) can [actually] Do-Otherwise amid [actual] options. The premise that [Immutable Fixed Chains of Immutable Properties / Fixed Desires] precludes Choice is misguided. The Principle of Proportionate Causality unpacks why/how Immutable Fixed Chains of Immutable Properties / Fixed Desires does not yield the result which Divine Determinism’s premises (wrongly) conclude. Immaterial Causality vis-à-vis the Intentional Self sharply diverges from Material Causality vis-à-vis Immutable Fixed Chains Of Immutable Fixed Properties.

The Why/How of that is unpacked a bit more along way here with a copy/paste of (…a few minor edits…) a brief reply to someone defending Divine Determinism in a discussion of our First Person Experience of “I-Can-Do-Otherwise” and whether or not that lands in Illusion v. Self or in an accurate perception of the Self. The context is not with Non-Theism (as it typically is) but instead with a proponent of Divine Determinism in which that core Properly Basic Belief of “I-Can-Do-Otherwise” must end, eventually, in illusion for in fact we cannot do otherwise — whether in Eden or not (according to Divine Determinism). Here’s the paraphrased reply to the proponent of Divine Determinism:

I don’t see that it works on your own terms. The reason why has to do with your regress from this or that “X” in the Created Being back, and back again to its ultimate metaphysical wellspring, namely “X-Itself” vis-à-vis God. The X’s you employ are Reason and Will and Self-Knowledge and you hope to avoid Foundationalism (full stop) and Coherentism (full stop) and Infinitism (full stop). Normally that is all easy, clean, coherent, and therefore okay. But, because of your wish to defend Divine Determinism you have had to pull up short in too many key areas when it comes to Perception vis-à-vis Mind vis-à-vis The Self vis-à-vis the First Person Experience of core Properly Basic Beliefs of “I-Exist” (source/ground v. Being Itself) and “I-Think/Reason” (source/ground v. Divine Mind Itself) and “I-Can-Do-Otherwise” (source/ground v. Divine Freedom v. Will Itself).

I don’t have to tell you that Non-Theism cannot get away with Defeaters there and you can’t either – and for all the same reasons. But you’re really only treating Immaterial Actions and Material Actions as if they are in the same Category of Causality/Causation(s) and then tacking on the label “God” / “Divine Determinism” and – then – not pressing through with what happens to the coherence of Non-Theism when it (finally, as it  must sooner or later) employs that SAME series of false identity claims, ,equivocations, and half-stops.

We ground the actuality of our own being in Being-Itself.  Well yes of course, given the Principle of Proportionate Causality that works and “I-Exist” is as our First Person Experience accurate and reliable (rather than illusory). So – then we move our lens over to our own reasoning, our own mind and seek to ground our own First Person Experience of reason/mind in Reason-Itself – in Mind-Itself vis-à-vis God. Well yes of course, given the Principle of Proportionate Causality that works and “I-Think” is as our First Person Experience accurate and reliable (rather than illusory).  So – then we move our lens over to our own Willing vis-à-vis Choosing vis-à-vis Can-Do-Otherwise and seek to ground our own First Person Experience of Can-Do-Otherwise in Volition-Itself – in Will-Itself vis-à-vis God. Well yes of course, given the Principle of Proportionate Causality that works and “I-Can-Do-Otherwise” is as our First Person Experience accurate and reliable (rather than illusory).

But wait. That all breaks down because the very foundation of your thesis is something which is ultimately an illusion – namely “I-Exist” and “I-Think/Reason” and “I-Can-Do-Otherwise” vis-à-vis Perception wrt our own “I/Me” First Person Experience – and all roads lead to The Will – namely our own First Person Experience of  this notion of Can-Do-Otherwise which we wish to ground in Will-Itself (God). Those three Properly Basic Beliefs have no Defeaters as the only way to Defeat “I-Exist” and “I-Think/Reason” and “I-Can-Do-Otherwise” is to finally eliminate the Properly Basic Self.  Non-Theism of course does this as all roads lead to [A] a full-on Determinism (at worst) or else to [B] Quantum Indeterminism or Q.I. (at best) which is of no help because Q.I. must then be fallaciously equated to [C] Intentionality – which of course is impossible given the Causation(s) available to Non-Theism.

But quite inexplicably you choose in your own terms the same fate for those three core Properly Basic Beliefs vis-à-vis our own First Person Experience with respect to “I-Exist” and “I-Think/Reason” and “I-Can-Do-Otherwise”. On your view such are not merely suspect but – in fact – such land in that which is completely illusory and not at all what is actually true.  We know this because I had said on my view the first person experience of such Properly Basic Beliefs are accurate and, then, I asked you if that First Person Experience vis-à-vis said Core Properly Basic Beliefs are reflective of reality (at bottom) or else illusion with respect to reality (at bottom). And your answer? Well twice we came to the nature of causation vis-à-vis our grounding of Being and of Reason and of Will back, and back again in our regress to their respective termini in Being Itself or Reason Itself or Will Itself and both times you abruptly cut off discussion.

The concept of “illusion” in “the philosophy of mind” as it relates to “intentionality” and “self” is not new or inaccessible material. Yet in order to defend your claim that our own Properly Basic Belief vis-à-vis Can-Do-Otherwise is illusion (we cannot do otherwise) you are willing to engage in discussion and, so, each time that discussion happens it arrives sooner or later, as it always must, to this juncture of Illusion vs. Actual and, once there, you just cut off discussion instead of pushing through. And the reason is obvious as the only way to Defeat “I-Exist” and “I-Think/Reason” and “I-Can-Do-Otherwise” is to finally eliminate the Properly Basic Self – and you cannot afford to go “that far”. So you just cut off the discussion at that juncture.

Well that’s fine as your Determinism has its problems but, here, you wish to traverse all of the same topography and, so, here, you’ve an essay which begins and ends in Reason Itself vis-à-vis Being Itself vis-à-vis Will Itself. Which is fine. It’s fairly easy to land in such a metaphysical wellspring and easily avoid (in all three) any problems of Foundationalism (full stop) and Coherentism (full stop) and Infinitism (full stop). Unfortunately though you are not consistent in traversing all such landscapes and so you must begin with (or end with) Illusion vis-à-vis our own First Person Experience vis-à-vis Properly Basic Beliefs vis-à-vis *The *Self vis-à-vis I-Can-Do-Otherwise.

Without the Principle of Proportionate Causality the Non-Theist cannot rationally find Reason-Itself sourcing and grounding our own “actual” Reasoning-Itself / Thinking-Itself as there must always be some point of equivocation as our own mind finally streams from something that is ultimately “non-mind”. Well, that’s Non-Theism. But your Divine Determinism ALSO rejects the Bridge of Proportionate Causality (…Non-Theism must do so, but you choose to do so as its not necessary given what the Christian Metaphysic makes available to you…) and you insist that we cannot ground our “I-Can-Do-Otherwise” in God “….because in us its caused instead of uncaused…. therefore it’s illusion…”.

Well that is just you assuming that actions made up of Material Causes have the same reach and the same floor and the same ceiling as actions within Immaterial Causes – which is fallacious because  you must equate the category of Immaterial to the category of Material in order to do that and, also, you must reject the Bridge of Proportionate Causality by which the very nature of the Imago Dei retains “actuality” wit respect to Properly Basic Beliefs v. Self. and does not succumb to Non-Theism’s “illusion” with respect to Properly Basic Beliefs v. Self.

The concept of “illusion” in “the philosophy of mind” as it relates to “intentionality” and “self” is not new or inaccessible material. The Capacity-To-Do-Otherwise (amid a set of decreed options) arrives just as Reason arrives, which arrives just as Being arrives, namely vis-à-vis the Bridge Across Non-Being and into Being, namely the Principle of Proportionate Causality.  As per (briefly) https://metachristianity.com/beings-superseding-ontic-over-both-material-and-non-being/

There is also the problem of Non-Being & Illusion with respect to God’s Will for Adam in Eden. God cannot Will the Reductio Ad Absurdum of Non-Being v. Non-Entity v. Illusion because “To-Will-Non-Entity” is “To-Will-Reductio” which is “itself” a Reductio Ad Absurdum. You are forced to define God’s Will in Eden along just those lines though, as per http://disq.us/p/1n9y1rc 

So on your thesis of grounding coherence in the Will of God, well, you have the Will of God landing in all sorts of Non-Being v. Non-Entity and/or in a category of Ontic Noble Lies told by the Necessary Being there in Eden as God In-Himself Wills Adam’s Disobedience from the get-go (..on Divine Determinism…). Again as per http://disq.us/p/1n9y1rc

For completeness here is that link:

If In Fact as per Ontic-Fact the Edenic Adamic is free to do *otherwise* then in fact that *otherwise* cannot sum to Ontic Non-Entity nor can it sum to a kind of Ontic Noble Lie told by the Necessary Being. In fact God / Omnipotence cannot create a being that is in fact free to do Non-Entity or free to do Non-Being. Any epistemic which cannot contain Eden and Eden’s possible worlds has, from the start, a suspicious ontic already in jeopardy (… http://disq.us/p/1n166pv ..).

Romans 9 – A Few Brief Segues:

1— Are You Better Than Your Friend Who Refused To Believe? — at https://soteriology101.com/2019/01/13/are-you-better-than-your-friend-who-refused-to-believe/

2— If Salvation Depends On Our Free Choice, How Are We Saved Totally By Grace? — at https://reknew.org/2019/02/if-salvation-depends-on-our-free-choice-how-are-we-saved-totally-by-grace/

3— Three Objections To The [Calvinistic] Doctrine Of Election — at https://soteriology101.com/2018/06/03/tim-keller-3-objections-to-the-calvinistic-doctrine-of-election/

4—William Lane Craig, Doctrine of Man – Part 17 — at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/doctrine-of-man-part-17/doctrine-of-man-part-17/ (…for obvious reasons Craig’s Molinism is not necessary for any of this….)

5— God’s Unconditional Love — at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/gods-unconditional-love/

6— Does the Atonement Imply Universalism? — at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/does-the-atonement-imply-universalism

7— the following four together — 1. http://disq.us/p/1ne4r2z and 2. http://disq.us/p/1ne4ujz and 3. http://disq.us/p/1ne55kr and 4. http://disq.us/p/1ne6xjb

8— Given its usefulness here, a repeated link to William Lane Craig’s Doctrine of Man – Part 17 — at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/doctrine-of-man-part-17/doctrine-of-man-part-17/

A proponent of Divine Determinism commented: “….NOTHING happens outside of God’s “control”…” A helpful reply to that was the following: “Yes that’s right, not even the FREE acts which YOU are 100% responsible for. Been there, done that.” (by Sye T. Bruggencate)

“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” (…by A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God)

—END—

 

Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to Time & Timelessness. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the First Adam. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the Last Adam.  To attempt the claim of, “Pure Act Becomes” entails an Uphill Ontic with respect to Pure Act (…which is a metaphysical absurdity…).  Pure Act in the Downhill Ontic reveals – Communicates – all ontic possibility.

The Syntax of the Truly Human & the Last Adam source to, well, to “where” or “what”? Initial layers there are briefly described in two comments elsewhere which are labeled “The Static 4D Block is not God”  It has two (brief) parts:

Part 1: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/03/divine-causality-and-human-freedom.html?showComment=1522329109633#c6168814463595095665

Part 2: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/03/divine-causality-and-human-freedom.html?showComment=1522329383706#c3821438287123971334

Also: they are copied near the end of https://metachristianity.blogspot.com/2018/03/comments-at-divine-causality-and-human.html 

The identity of Communicate transcends efficient and final causality for that which Is Caused does not exist before in Act, whereas that which Is Communicated exists before in Act (…note that Garrigou-Lagrange’s “The Trinity and God the Creator” adds several inroads there…).

In the timeless deliberation in/of Infinite Consciousness vis-à-vis Being Itself there cannot be *less* than Totality of Proposition & Truth Predicate & All Possible X’s in an Intentionality of Communique/Procession which is itself Pure Act and which is therefore in excess of all ontic possibility as – again – the express  identity of Communicate transcends efficient and final causality for that which Is Caused does not exist before in Act, whereas that which Is Communicated exists before in Act. 

Whence, then, the concretely-real X that is, say, “The Truly Human”?

Whence, then, the concretely-real X that is, say, “Time & Tense”?

Whence, then, the concretely-real X that is, say, “Timelessness”?

In short, what is *more* *real* — [A] the Contingent X — or — [B] that *same* Contingent X vis-à-vis its very fountainhead as the Necessary X there amid the Divine Mind — the Totality of Proposition & Truth Predicate & All Possible X’s in an Intentionality of Communique / Procession which is itself Pure Act and which is therefore in excess of all ontic possibility?

Clearly B subsumes A for in fact A streams from, derives its very being from, B.

To phrase it in a more versatile format:

Clearly the Uncreated, Underived X subsumes and outdistances the Created, Contingent X for the later in fact streams from – derives its very being from – the former.

The question, “Is God Outside of Time? Inside of Time?” is uninformed for the Divine Mind is found outdistancing both that which sums to possible worlds (..and thereby possible reference frames which themselves sum to less than Totality..) and that which sums to created, contingent worlds (..and thereby created, contingent reference frames which themselves sum to less than Totality..). The Reference Frame of Totality — or The Absolute’s Own Reference Frame — cannot be something less than “God / Being Itself Himself” (..so to speak..) and necessarily saturates all possible reference frames within all possible worlds and all created reference frames within all created worlds.  This or that World or this or that X in some World existing in some sort of God-Vacuum is a logical impossibility.

Time and Fact and Conscious Observer and Reference Frame press in:

We know that time is neither eternal nor absolute [..time is neither the Absolute nor the Absolute’s reference frame..]. We also know that explanatory termini constitute either [A] final absurdity or else [B] the Absolute’s reference frame, which must by necessity be Self-Reference, which is a metaphysical absurdity — but for the Triune God who meets us in Genesis.

“God is his own frame of reference. We have already considered the fact that the infinite cannot be defined with reference to the finite. God, therefore, has to be self-referencing. This would be an absurd proposition but for the fact that, in the being of God, there is a plurality of infinite persons and each can define himself with reference to the other. God can truly be said to be self-existent only because he is the all-personal, all-relational being…” (L. T. Jeyachandran)

All such vectors reveal the fallacious premises beneath the claim that Pure Act must be Static, void of Procession, void of Communique, void of Logos, just as they reveal the fallacious premises beneath its twin claim that “therefore” God cannot actually *do* *anything*.

In short: “Pure Act = Static Noun” is uninformed.

In short: “Pure Act” = the following:

God *is* Pure Act *is* Ceaseless Procession visa-a-vis the triune landscape of [A] The Infinite Knower and [B] The Infinitely Known and [C] All Procession/Communique therein (Logos). There we find Infinite Consciousness – the Divine Mind – the Trinitarian Life as we begin Mapping Uncreated, Underived Reality —  the map of “Being Itself”, which of course is not the territory, and, what begins to take shape is, though uncanny, not entirely unexpected:

[A] is not [B]
[B] is not [C]
[C] is not [A]

Each is Being in totum, each is *GOD* in Whom that which does not produce its own being instead by continuous incantation Communicates all that is Himself which is nothing less than God.  In the timeless deliberation in/of Infinite Consciousness vis-à-vis Being Itself there cannot be *less* than Totality of Proposition & Truth Predicate & All Possible X’s in an Intentionality of Communique/Procession which is itself Pure Act and which is therefore in excess of all ontic possibility as – again – the express  identity of Communicate transcends efficient and final causality for that which Is Caused does not exist before in Act, whereas that which Is Communicated exists before in Act. 

Ravi Zacharias reminds us that distinction is not division and, then building further on that we can say that when the (…why not…) Heavy-Meta-Referent is the Necessary Being then we encounter in said “distinction void of division” nothing less than the syntax of Divine Simplicity amid Pure Act and every bit of the map at hand leads us into nothing less than the observed plurality of absolute foci of absolute consciousness.  As D.B. Hart comments somewhere, we have come upon, there, “…the metaphysical wellspring of all ontic possibility…”.

Truly Human? Truly God? The Last Adam? Incarnation? And all in juxtaposition to the First Adam, the Contingent?

Recall from earlier: Clearly the Uncreated, Underived X subsumes and outdistances the Created, Contingent X for the later in fact streams from – derives its very being from – the former.  All of these *distinctions* speak to how it is that the Last Adam — as in Logos — as in Christ is in fact both Truly Human and Truly God while the First Adam — there in Eden as the contingent being, the created being — is Truly Human-Full-Stop.

Eternalism, Presentism, The Absolute’s Frame of Reference, and the Contingent’s Reference Frame – a brief segue through the lens of a complaint from our Non-Theist friends:

“….the Christian tool of God as Author doesn’t work…if you write a short fictional story about a real person the real person there does not *actually* experience any of the emotions you imagined them having in your story….”

That complaint is equating two non-identical concepts with respect to the term “write” as it, in error, equates the landscape of 1. a contingent being writing about a contingent being — to — 2. the following with respect to ontic possibility:

“…God cannot know as I know…” Here we find that “…what it’s like for me when I feel…” is an awareness / reality that itself is invented by God. That is to say, God never does create or invent [God] nor (therefore) [God in Man], but, rather, Man is created, invented, vis-à-vis the Imago Dei…. and all possible Proposition / Truth Predicate (…which includes “I feel”, and what it *means* and what it *is*….) merely sums to ontic-possibility — and the Fountainhead of all such ontic-possibility is *God*. Therefore the complaint must follow through with *real* and with *feeling* both upstream and downstream to and from the metaphysical wellspring of all ontic possibility — namely Being Itself — as in *GOD*.

“…God cannot know as I know…” As contingent beings we invent, say, a neuron and then, from the outside, try to imagine what sort of “feeling” that neuron is “generating” by its internal activity. Whereas, God does not create that way. One must be careful of one’s Frame of Reference.  The very concept of “feeling” is itself non-being but for the very fountainhead of all being. In the same way, the very syntax of “I feel” is non-entity, non-being, but for the fact that that reality itself is timelessly Fully Ontic in and through the Divine Mind. That is what “metaphysical wellspring of all ontic possibility” means. — Or, another way to demonstrate the same interface of the two reference frames in-play:

1. Think of the trillions of possible worlds which one could find in the Divine Mind with properties and X’s we couldn’t even imagine.

2. Then take that “couldn’t even imagine” part and apply it to our reality of “I feel” as being an unimaginable concept in one of those other worlds. A being in World-X cannot even imagine our World’s syntax of “I-feel”, and so on, and so on.

3. Yet, both such Worlds are sourced to the Divine Mind whereby it is the case that Infinite Consciousness is nothing less than Totality vis-à-vis The Absolute’s Reference Frame – which necessarily saturates all possible X’s, both from “without” and from “within”.

4. That it is how thoroughly *sourced* every possible ontic in fact is with respect to *GOD*.

Do You Think Of God As He Truly Is? is by Tom Gilson (… https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2014/06/do-you-think-about-god-as-he-truly-is/ …) and helps focus our lens:

“….When God created space, where did he put it? ….When God caused the beginning of the created order, what gave him the idea of “beginning”? ….Can you imagine making something and not putting it anywhere? Can you imagine it not being somewhere in relation to where you are? The space God created has no spacial relationship to himself. He is, in a sense, both inside it and outside it at the same time. He is completely and totally present in the room where you sit, and yet the entire created order cannot contain him. He is where you are and where I am, but if you traveled here from where you are, you would not pass through any part of God, for he has no parts….”

The sense in which we are *real* is for all the same reasons thoroughly and irreducibly ontic. The Hard Stop of all Facthood, of all Ontic, is found there in Infinite Consciousness — in God — in and through all Communique / Processions therein vis-à-vis Logos. That is all a slice of a much wider canopy, all of which carries us forward. Therefore, we must push through to coherence:

1. One must account for where and what, both upstream and downstream, the ontology of “fully human” in the Christian metaphysic with respect to the First Adamic, which references Logos with respect to me and you and so on vis-à-vis “the” human nature.

2. One must account for where and what, both upstream and downstream, the ontology of “fully human” in the Christian metaphysic with respect to the Last Adamic, which references Logos with respect to Christ, and thereby Incarnation, and – again – “the” human nature (humanity) therein.

3. One must account for the “where” and the “what” – both upstream and downstream, that is the ontology of the coherent interface of The Absolute’s Frame of Reference (Infinite Consciousness – the Divine Mind) with the Contingent Frame of Reference – and of the coherent interface of the A-Theory of Time with the B-Theory of Time – and of the coherent interface of Timelessness with Time & Tense – and of the coherent interface of The Necessary with the Contingent – and of the coherent interface of (as some call Him) The Always & The Already with the Temporal & the Becoming – and of the coherent interface of All-Sufficiency with Insufficiency.

Reality’s Wider Canopy Carries Forward To Convergence Within Logos as all such interfaces are unavoidable at some ontological seam somewhere and it is here where Consciousness and Frame of Reference press in as the landscape of Eternalism and Presentism emerges. And it is there where we must remind our Non-Theist friends of the fact that the concept of an “ontological cul-de-sac” is a metaphysical absurdity, a logical impossibility.

The Trinitarian Life carries us to the lucidity of the Reference Frame of Totality — or The Absolute’s Own Reference Frame — which necessarily saturates all possible reference frames within all possible worlds and all actual reference frames within all actual worlds vis-à-vis Logos — the Fountainhead of all ontological possibility which necessarily streams from nothing less than all possible Procession & Communique amid The Infinite Knower & The Infinitely Known.

Quote “…This view assumes that whatever God wills he wills of necessity because he is the Necessary Being. But God’s necessity pertains solely to the necessity of his existence and certain essential properties, since his essence and his existence are identical. This view also arises from the belief that God’s unchangeable eternity is identified with his own will and will act, such that if his will were otherwise he would be a different God.

But, as I said above and as St. Thomas also says, God’s necessity pertains solely to those things that are essential to his nature, such as his own goodness. Thus, God wills his own goodness of necessity, while lesser goods are the object of his free choice, such as to create this world or some other world or no finite world at all. It is true that God is eternal and unchangeable. But what the critics miss is that he is identical with his own eternal free choice, including the choice to create this world and no other. I find Christians have little trouble understanding this simple truth, while atheists find it a mortal stumbling block.

While it is true that God cannot change his will to create this specific world, it is, as St. Thomas points out, a suppositional necessity. That is to say, given that God chose to make this particular world, it is true that he must make this particular world. But nothing makes him have to have chosen as he did. (Note here the misunderstandings that can arise from our need to speak in tensed predication, while God is entirely outside of time in his eternal now in which all his activity is timeless.) Suppositional necessity means no more than something like the fact that I have chosen to rob a bank means that I now necessarily am choosing to rob this bank — but nothing makes me rob the bank in the first place. So, too, once God in timeless fashion chooses to create this world, it is true that he must choose to create this world — simply a matter of the principle of identity.

Still, Christians easily grasp that God is his own eternal absolutely free choice and that whatever he chooses less than his own goodness can be chosen freely by him. God remains absolutely free with respect to his having created and continuing to create this world….” End quote (by Dr. Dennis Bonnette)

The Syntax of the Truly Human & the Last Adam

The First Adam:

How is it that our Non-Theist friends claim that we are to discover our own derived, contingent, created Truly Human ultimately streaming from a metaphysical wellspring other than *GOD* or other than that which is Being Itself ?  Clearly the Uncreated, Underived Truly Human subsumes and outdistances the Derived, Created, Contingent Truly Human for the later in fact streams from – derives its very being from – the former. Where is the Ontic-Arrow which, if followed, finds “Pure Act Actualizing / Becoming”?

The Last Adam:

How is it that our Non-Theist friends claim that we are to discover the Underived, Uncreated Truly Human ultimately streaming from a metaphysical wellspring other than *GOD* or other than that which is Being Itself ?  Clearly the Uncreated, Underived Truly Human subsumes and outdistances all forms of Dualism vis-à-vis the Derived, Created, Contingent Truly Human for the later in fact streams from – derives its very being from – the former. Where is the Ontic-Arrow which, if followed, finds “Pure Act Actualizing / Becoming”?

Which “Adamic” is such a (fallacious) premise (strawman) referencing? How is that, given Sinai, David calls his son Lord?

Which “Adamic” is such a (fallacious) premise (strawman) referencing? How is that, given Sinai, David calls his son Lord?  When we follow Logos upstream we arrive at the syntax of the Last Adam.

Which “Adamic” is it which we find as we follow Logos downstream into Eden and Privation and Sinai and Covenant vis-à-vis John 10:35 referencing the 82nd Psalm and the syntax of “…I said ‘you are gods’…”?

Which follow-through shall we deny? The Divine Mind and the Last Adam? The fact that all that is made vis-à-vis the First Adam arrives in and by Logos? As in — In and by and through Christ we find not only the Living God but also the very wellspring of our own truly human nature.

We discover in the Incarnation that which cannot be otherwise, that which in fact always is, namely, that uncanny but necessary continuum FROM what DBH terms “…the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility…” there in… in… well what?  Well in nothing less than Pure Act, and, then, from there, we keep going TO…. to… well what? Well to the very Possibility we speak of in this or that Contingent World, and, there we begin to get our first glimpse into the metaphysical absurdity of claiming that “Pure Act” in fact “Becomes” when Pure Act “Creates” as that fallacy claims to find Pure Act in this or that Uphill Ontc (…a metaphysical absurdity…).

Proportionate Causality – Not Pantheism – And The Necessary Downhill Ontic / Ontic Descent

• http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/first-without-second.html 
• http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/01/metaphysical-middle-man.html
• http://disq.us/p/1p3pk0i

Christ reveals something which bothers us, namely a seamlessneess with respect to the singular [Un-Derived-Logos / Derived-Humanity]. We then struggle with the second half of that as if it (…Derived Humanity & the Truly / Fully Human…) is itself sourced to some other Wellspring OTHER THAN Pure Act (…Un-Derived-Logos…) and we whisper something like, “...well how on earth did God ever get THOSE TWO together…?”

Recall that C.S. Lewis comments somewhere along the lines that we are mistaken to think that our world or universe is the only World or Universe which can be (actually or in principle) in need of redemption and, just the same, we have no idea by what Modes God would in fact go about doing so in other worlds. But we are not totally blind: In the topography of Proportionate Causality we find Pure Act in what cannot be anything other than the Downhill-Ontic into the Created, the Contingent, the Derived — and this by only one possible Progression / Communique which is that of Ontic Descent.

The Creative Act carries us to the landscape of this or that Contingent X and a discussion of the traversal of the path from Non-Being and into Being. There we must first jettison the syntax of Before/After as there is no such application possible in said traversal and, also, the traversal in question cannot yield a product that is “more-concrete” than its own Wellspring.

We find neither an uphill ontic nor a lateral ontic but only the (as it were) downhill ontic and that downhill ontic is necessarily just that – an ontic descent – or else equality with God ensues. That is what we find in all syntax of the First Adam amid the Truly Human.

We’re not done yet though, for in Logos vis-à-vis Christ we DO find Equality with God:

In Christ we find the Truly Human in equality with God as “The Syntax of the Truly Human & the Last Adam” is necessarily bifurcated there amid Ascent & Descent. Then, from there, the Ontic-Closure which both Non-Theism and Pantheism ultimately forfeit (…and therein they each expunge the truly human…)  is found, ultimately, in Christ.

The Humanity of the First Adam

The Humanity / Human Nature of you and I and all of us, finds its ontic-wellspring – its ontic hard-stop in the Uncreated and Underived Processions of Pure Act and as we trace, follow, draw out, our (…the First Adam…) own “ontological history of becoming” we find the necessarily Downhill Ontic of Pure Act traversing the landscape of Proportionate Causality wherein the Conditional-X which Is-Not is exactly and unconditionally populated vis-à-vis Being – or to put it another way – the Derived-X which Is-Not is exactly and non-derivationally populated vis-à-vis Being – and therein the Created and Contingent X in fact streams from – derives its very being from – Underived Pure Act and is therefore in-sufficient in its own ontic possibility in that it cannot, in any possible world, stand alone and find within itself its own explanatory terminus.

That Particular Human Nature is found traversing still far more Downhill Ontic progressions in all things Adamic with respect to the all things Edenic. That is because in our own ontological history of becoming we find that “Eden/Edenic” is not Privation nor is it God’s Eternal Ideal of Eternal Life even as we find two (count them) outward facing Doors/Trees there in Eden.  One is of course nothing less than an Uphill Ontic vis-à-vis “Adam/Adamic” (…Eternal Life, and so on…) while the other is of course nothing less than a Downhill Ontic vis-à-vis “Adam/Adamic” (…Privation, and so on…).

The Humanity of the Second Adam – Incarnation

That which we find vis-à-vis Incarnation is not only found in 1st Century Palestine vis-à-vis that same necessarily Downhill Ontic of Pure Act which we just found in the paragraph above (…The Humanity of the First Adam…) but, in addition to that, we find that, void of that Traversal of Privation, this second Human Nature, this Last Adam, is not only just as Human as you and I and all of us, but in fact it is more Human and therein in all of its (His) contours the Humanity of Christ IS wider & thicker even as it (He) KNOWS wider & thicker even as it (He) FEELS wider & thicker even as it (He) TASTES wider & thicker even as it (He) – just to be clear – IS Wider & Thicker.  Contrary to the logically impossible shouts of “God cannot know as I know what it IS to BE Human!” (…in all of its various forms…) it is instead we, the First Adam, and not He, the Last Adam, which “does not know in full” what it is to Be Fully Human.  Recall first that the there are no such things as Non-Theism’s “ontological cul-de-sacs” for such is a metaphysical absurdity and, secondly, recall the necessary progressions as we traverse Pure Act ~ Downhill Ontic(s) ~ Uphill Ontic(s).

The Humanity of the Second Adam – Death & Ascension

That which we find vis-à-vis Incarnation is not only found in 1st Century Palestine vis-à-vis that same necessarily Downhill Ontic of Pure Act which we just found in the paragraph above (…The Humanity of the First Adam…), but, also, we find that, void of that Traversal of Privation, this second Human Nature, this Last Adam, is not only just as Human as you and I and all of us, but in fact it is more Human. Further, we find – contrary to the logically impossible shouts of “God cannot know as I know what it IS to BE Human!” – it is instead we, the First Adam, and not He, the Last Adam, which “does not know in full” what it is to Be Fully Human.  The Death of Christ and the Ascension of Christ again finds nothing other than the metaphysic of Pure Act in all actual and all possible “ontological histories of becoming”.

Should we ask, “What is God? What is Man?” we begin to spy the most uncanny and unexpected, and yet unavoidable, contours as we turn our gaze upon Pure Act Himself, High on a Hill, Arms Spread Wide, quenching all in-sufficiency, streaming all-sufficiency amid/of the syntax of nothing less than both Downhill Ontic(s) and Uphill Ontic(s) and whether we travel with the Last Adam – our very Source and Hope – to the very depths of Downhill Descent or to the very heights of Uphill Ascent makes no difference as all points of Being, of Possibility, of Light converge in and through the thoroughly Trinitarian & Cruciform lens vis-à-vis the Christian Metaphysic.

Eternalism, Presentism, and Frame of Reference

Metaphysics in its own frail and contingent contours cannot force Eternalism even as it cannot force Presentism and we begin to see why as it lacks what cannot be found in its own frame with respect to Being Itself and with respect to Possibility vis-à-vis any and all Uphill Ontic(s) and/or Downhill Ontic(s).  Where Sean Carroll’s Poetic Naturalism finds the 4D Block fading into the illusory knotts of absurdity, the Christian Metaphysic finds quite another state of affairs.  Just the same, where GRANTING the Non-Theist his past-eternal universe will, on first glance, seem to satisfy his conditions for No-God we find (…as we continue and press in…) quite another state of affairs, and therein we find the Why and How behind so many Christians just granting the in-principle Past Eternal X (… http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/carroll-on-laws-and-causation.html ..).

The Logos of God not only comes into the world vis-à-vis the syntax of the Last Adam but also in fact ALL that is made arrives in and by the currents of Logos vis-à-vis the syntax of the First Adam.  The Tyndale commentary alludes to such currents, “…there is a possible irony in Jesus’ reference to his being ‘set apart…and sent into the world’ – while ‘the Jews’ celebrated the rededication of the temple, they rejected the one ‘dedicated’ (i.e. set apart) by God and sent into the world…” To put that another way:

Downstream we find the First Adam, “…I said ‘you are gods’…”

Upstream we find the Last Adam, “How is it that David calls his son ‘Lord’?”

Recall that the Cruciform Lens is not a World-Contingent Lens, so to speak, but in fact carries our definitions “through” the limited topography of Privation and then “out-of” Privation “into” reality’s wider Metanarrative and therefore includes, but is not limited to, our own (contingent) totality of 1. Pre-Eden and 2. Eden and 3. Privation and 4. God’s Eternal Ideal / Eternal Life for all things Adamic. THOSE four (…4X, say…) themselves cannot “be” but for the fact that the Uncreated, Underived 4X subsumes and outdistances the Created, Contingent 4X for the later in fact streams from – derives its very being from – the former.

Which Ontic-Closure? Were it not for Christendom’s Trinitarian metaphysic we can avoid neither Non-Theism’s nor Pan-Theism’s absurdities and annihilations in that arena for, in the former, there is no possibility for “a” human nature given the fact that ontological cul-de-sacs are logical impossibilities, and, in the later, All-Is-God, whether Rock or Tree or Man such that God = Human = God = Rock = Human = Tree = God.   Whereas, the Triune coherently solves this: In and by and through Christ we find not only the Living God but also the very wellspring of our own truly human nature.

The Divine Mind & The 4D Block Universe – The Embedded Conscious Observer & Eternalism/Presentism

“….but Pure Act creating just is Pure Act becoming…. therefore there is no Christian God….as it’s absurd….”

A few paraphrased comments extracted from http://disq.us/p/1p3pk0i and from http://disq.us/p/1owm4xz and from several other comments in other threads are added here for context with respect to the embedded and/or contingent conscious observer with respect to the 4D Block Universe (on the one hand) and with respect to (on the other hand) the Christian Metaphysic which subsumes BOTH Eternalism AND Presentism. They’re from discussions and so the “….we say / you said / they / we….” and so on are leftovers from those formats in the current copies/pastes.

Putting them all into one block of Word-Press “Quote” format will make sub-quotes within the text more difficult to distinguish, and, so, instead, the section will simply begin with Begin Excerpts and it will simply end with End Excerpts, which will allow the sub-quotes to appear in normal Word-Press “quote” format. Hence, until you see both Begin / End….

Begin Excerpts:

You’re still equating Communique to Becoming in your discussing of some material and non-Christian god while also expunging the concept of Progression / Communique vis-à-vis Logos vis-à-vis the Divine Mind. You’ve ignored those facts and just continue to claim that Pure Act creating just is Pure Act becoming despite the fact that said claim actually contradicts the Christian’s terms and premises which are in-play.

Let’s take, say, the Incarnation In Total. Your argument is misguided given that it equates Incarnation to God-Becoming with respect to [1] Truly Human and [2] Truly God. We must ask you: WHICH ONTIC STREAM is it exactly that the Non-Theist thinks the Christian metaphysic sources the entire ontic content of “Human Nature” to? Recall that we are discussing the term “Real” and “How Real Is Real” in relation to the Contingent Conscious Observer and also we are discussing the Divine Mind vis-à-vis Infinite Consciousness, or what D.B. Hart terms “….the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility….”

What is *more* *real*?  Which Ontic subsumes which ontic?

Whence the “Arrow” of Being?  

Where is this supposed “becoming” of “God” into or out of “Human Nature” as we follow THAT particular (Christian) Ontic Arrow not only Downstream but also Upstream?

With respect to The Syntax of the Truly Human & the Last Adam there are more layers as in Pure Act we do not find “beginning-to-exist” for such is nothing less than Communique (…more can be said there of course…) in the timeless deliberation in/of Being Itself and as such we find that there cannot be *less* than Totality with respect to, say, Proposition & Truth Predicate & Possible Perception, and so on and as we go further we discover that all such vectors are in an Intentionality of Communique / Procession which is itself Pure Act and which is therefore in excess of all ontic possibility.

Treating the landscape of Particle & Motion & Quantum Flux as if that paradigm houses the same Means & Ends – the same metaphysical topography – as the paradigm of Mind & Communique & Intention forces not only a category error but also a wide array of equivocations as one makes one’s logical progressions from Point A to Point B, and so on.

That is why the Embedded and/or Contingent Conscious Observer is forever a slight of hand in far too many Non-Theistic treatments, and that just won’t do given the fact that ALL OF US in ALL of our Metrics are in fact ALL forced into the lap of the Conscious Observer. That is true whether such carries us beyond our own contingent reason and into the Necessary & All-Subsuming – into Reason Itself – or – instead – into the illusory shadows of a frail and mutable conscious observer within some cousin of Idealism or Solipsism – into the circular pains of the Contingent & All-Eliminating.

You complain that such a metaphysic is “…intruding into science….” Nice try. The healthy and informed scientist is self-aware enough to realize that all empirical data just is found intruding into the domain of what just is the frail and contingent mind of the contingent conscious observer. Such self-awareness demands lucidity and therefore keeps-going. Why? Because should one instead just “stop” “there” then one has unnecessarily embraced absurdity (…we say unnecessarily because it is only one’s a priori of no-god which keeps one from traveling futher – and when it is God vs. Absurdity and you choose the latter – well there is our proverbial QED…).

Totality & The Absolute’s Reference Frame:

Permitting frail and contingent reference frames to define one’s T.O.E. is inexplicable. And ultimately irrational. The Non-Theistic Start/Stop points fail to account for the sheer Totality of our dependence upon the unavoidable Ontic Arrow of the Absolute’s Own Reference Frame whether we are traveling Downstream or Upstream. Should one push onward one will find that logical necessity forces all termini into the Absolute’s Own Frame of Reference, into Totality and nothing less than Self-Reference v. the Divine Mind.

I’ve asked you to define the F.O.R. (Frame Of Reference) you perceive through, gaze through, as you arrive at these conclusions about the singularity that the 4D Block Universe or that which is [All-Of-Reality]. The metrics of the physical sciences have a Frame Of Reference but you claim that your Past-Self and your Present-Self and your Future-Self are all just-as-actual, void of ANY Ontic Incline, and this is quite different than that unavoidable Downhill Ontic vis-à-vis The Divine Mind, Pure Act, and Creation. It’s fine to want to claim that about yourself, and all of us, all of us embedded conscious observers, embedded in the 4D Block Universe. Okay. Granted. But then what is YOUR particular F.O.R. (frame of reference) vis-à-vis science and what is YOUR particular F.O.R with respect to, say, reality’s fundamental nature or, say, the 4D Block Universe, or, say, [Reality]?

Apparently you, the embedded conscious observer, have NO frame of reference — perceiving Tomorrow exactly as you perceive Today and perceiving all of those exactly as you perceive yesterday.  If you have no F.O.R. (Frame Of Reference) then you See/Know Tomorrow in the same sense and degree as you See/Know Today.

BUT: Everyone perceives, observes, that that is not the case.

YET: You, here, count that undeniable observation as “gibberish”.

I’m satisfied with your evasion there. It’s demonstrable. Or, I’m satisfied that you define that undeniable perception as “gibberish” as it is in fact demonstrably absurd in that it eliminates the embedded conscious observer. It’s that inevitable slide of the embedded conscious observer into knots of equivocations, into the illusory, into non-being.

“….your question makes no sense because it is like asking what color is anger….”

Well yeah, in the 4D Block Universe every slice of the Block is on ontological par with every other slice and, so, the problem you’re facing here seems silly to you because it seeks to draw distinctions when it comes to the physical sciences and our claim-making about such metrics, experiments, data, change, and perception.  I don’t mind you conflating physics for ontology. Also, I don’t mind you eliminating all ontological distinctions. I’m just curious how many steps here it will take to observe your inevitable slide (…on your own terms…) into [There Is No Jealousy – All-Is-Color], so to speak. As in the following:

Is what you are asserting 1. you the embedded conscious observer or is it 2. your perceiving or is it 3. the reference frame of both 1. & 2. ?? And, then, which of those three fails to line up with that singularity that is [All-Of-Reality]?  On your own terms we are forced to ask: The singularity is, say, Color, but which of those 3 is NOT? Do you perceive and know tomorrow just as you perceive and know yesterday? If not, then one of the three is not “Color”, is not on “ontic-par” with [The Block].

“…..Neither, the “singularity” (which is your god) doesn’t exist. So all this talk about reference frame is meaningless…..”

The singularity YOU are defining isn’t OUR Christian God. You’re evading. If you 1. cannot or 2. will not unpack your own frame of reference through which you perceive and measure and define the singularity that is [All-Of-Reality], which includes the map of physics, then I can only conclude that you 1. cannot or 2. will not. The fate of the embedded conscious observer will have to wait. See E. Feser on the reality (or non-reality) of change and temporal becoming at http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/carroll-on-laws-and-causation.html and also at http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radioactive-decay.html

“…. Edward Feser is just presupposing presentism and he’s offered no justification for it… he just begs the question….”

Let’s just grant that and ignore the premises which actually build up to that conclusion – you know – pretend they don’t exist and Feser just “STARTS” from the get-go with the “conclusion”. Fine. Granted for the sake of this discussion. The reply, then, would be this:

Irrelevant. Why? Because the Christian metaphysic outreaches physics. BOTH Presentism AND Eternalism are coherently accommodated (…of course not your “Physics-Only” flavors….). It’s YOUR reference frame and YOUR claims about the reality or non-reality of change and becoming that you’re being asked about — to test your denial of absurdity. So far you’ve sought to evade or else eliminate the contingent frame of reference with respect to the embedded conscious observer and it is there that one is rationally justified in rejecting your Map’s array of reductions to absurdity.  Note the source of the problem: the fact of the contingent frame of reference isn’t the source of the forced absurdity. It is the Non-Theist’s Premature & Full Stop which is the source of the absurdity.

Feser comments on “change” and a bit more at http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/carroll-on-laws-and-causation.html and also at http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radioactive-decay.html with the following two, one from each:

“….what “allows us to speak the language of causes and effects” has nothing essentially to do with tracing series of events backwards in time.  Here again Carroll is just begging the question.  On the Aristotelian-Scholastic analysis, questions about causation are raised wherever we have potentialities that need actualization, or a thing’s being metaphysically composite and thus in need of a principle that accounts for the composition of its parts, or there being a distinction in a thing between its essence or nature on the one and its existence on the other, or a thing’s being contingent.  The universe, however physics and scientific cosmology end up describing it – even if it turned out to be a universe without a temporal beginning, even if it is a four-dimensional block universe, even if Hawking’s closed universe model turned out to be correct, even if we should really think in terms of a multiverse rather than a single universe – will, the Aristotelian argues, necessarily exhibit just these features (potentialities needing actualization, composition, contingency, etc.).  And thus it will, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, require a cause outside it.  And only that which is pure actuality devoid of potentiality, only what is utterly simple or non-composite, only something whose essence or nature just is existence itself, only what is therefore in no way contingent but utterly necessary – only that, the classical theist maintains, could in principle be the ultimate terminus of explanation, whatever the specific scientific details turn out to be…….

……Change is the actualization of a potentiality, and unless we affirm this we will be stuck with a static Parmenidean conception of the world.  And that is not an option, because the existence of change cannot coherently be denied.  Even to work through the steps of an argument for the non-existence of change is itself an instance of change.  Sensory experience – and thus the observation and experiment on which empirical science rests – presupposes real change.  (Hence it is incoherent to suggest, as is sometimes done, that relativity shows that change is illusory, since the evidence for relativity presupposes sensory experience and thus change.) ….”

As you now evade E. Feser in addition to several others, recall that the Christian metaphysic subsumes BOTH Presentism AND Eternalism. Not your Non-Theistic “Physics-Only” flavors of course. Your confusion there was revealed by your fallacious premise that God is EITHER inside Time OR outside of Time. As with all Contingent World Reference Frames, it cannot be Either/Or, but is, and can only be, BOTH.

End Excerpts. 

In Closing:

Going A bit further…

I am a body/spirit. So are you. That’s not problematic in and of itself. Ascend to ultimate reality and the syntax there becomes peculiar with respect to “Being Itself” in the setting of Truly-Human and Truly-God, especially given *GOD* / the Metaphysical Fountainhead from which stream all ontological possibilities — which includes the Truly-Human.

The reason this is different than Pantheism is obvious once we trace the ontological history of *our* humanity through its traversal of Privation/Eden/Creation and how that footprint differs from what we find once we trace the ontological history of *Christ’s* Truly-Human timelessly streaming from/in that Metaphysical Fountainhead of all ontological possibility. We have to be careful on which Adamic we are referencing: How is that, given Sinai, David calls his son Lord?

In fact, *given* just such a Fountainhead and *given* the God of love, mercy, justice, and grace, and *given* the Decree of the Imago Dei, it cannot be otherwise that — given those facts and decrees, we end up (…privation or not…) with just such a statement about Body/Spirit (…you and I are a body and a spirit etc…) as it applies to *us* (…on the one hand…) forever in juxtaposition to (…on the other hand…) the kind of statement we find once we trace the ontological history of *Christ’s* Truly-Human timelessly streaming from/in that Metaphysical Fountainhead from which stream all ontological possibilities — which includes the Truly-Human.

In Christ we find not only the Living God but also the very wellspring of our own truly human nature. The Cross does not *make* God, it *reveals *God. There are reasons we find in Eden the *same* two — count them — outward facing doors which we find in Privation.

It is said that Christ is the Last Adam, and we begin to see into various inroads as to why. Christ is the Last Adam exactly because Christ is *the* metaphysical wellspring of all things Adamic. By Him and through Him all things are made — and such Living Water is nothing less than GOD / Being Itself.

The Ontic-Closure which both Non-Theism and Pan-Theism ultimately forfeit (…and therein expunge the truly human…)  is found, ultimately, in Christ. Whether in Pre-Eden, Eden, Privation, or Eternity.

“The most basic pedagogical decision to make in presenting the doctrine of the Trinity is whether to begin the exposition with the temporal missions and reason back from them to the eternal processions, or whether to take the opposite approach, beginning rather with the eternal processions and then working out and down to the temporal missions. Both procedures have much to commend them.” (Fred Sanders: The Triune God – New Studies in Dogmatics)

Incarnation is not Dualism. Not exactly.

End.

Context:

1. https://metachristianity.blogspot.com/2018/03/comments-at-divine-causality-and-human.html

2. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/03/divine-causality-and-human-freedom.html

3. https://metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/

4. https://metachristianity.com/trinity-links/

A. Less Precise Question: Do Christians & Muslims Worship The Same God?
B. More Precise Question: What Is It To Worship In Spirit & In Truth?
C. As per https://www.str.org/node/42619#comment-3435361127 which is copied here:

I think you’re correct to point out the clear divergence between Christianity and Islam in the categories you’ve listed. Those are real. Concrete. Absolute. The only quibble I’d make is in how to define the areas of obvious overlap in ontological real estate which is shared by both. But that is a problem which stems from the question itself, not from any possible answer.

By that I mean that this question unfortunately always asks, “Is it the *SAME GOD*?”

That’s a problem for two reasons.

Reason 1:

The Jew today and as Christ’s contemporary did believe in and worship YHWH. But did not accept Christ. To comport with reality we need a metric which fully tackles both the overlapping ontological real estate and the concrete divergence.

Reason 2:

This spring-boards off of reason one. Christ did not *qualify* their worship with terms which land on SAME GOD / DIFFERENT GOD but, rather, with terms which land on IN SPIRIT / IN TRUTH.

That landing strip is different than the landing strip of SAME/DIFFERENT. Christ got it right because his terms expressly do not expunge real/genuine overlapping ontological real estate. His metric comports with reality.

Whereas, the way modernity has been asking this question is, it seems, almost always along the metric of “SAME GOD / DIFFERENT GOD”, and that metric fails to comport with reality because it does expunge genuinely overlapping ontological real estate.

Whereas, Christ’s metric of IN SPIRIT / IN TRUTH references vectors landing on the fullness of wholeness in the modality of the interface amid we who are contingent beings and He Who is the Necessary Being. In said interface only All Sufficiency will do, and that by logical necessity, and *that* necessarily carries forward to an ontological location of In Spirit / In Truth, and *that* necessarily carries forward to a contingent being’s ontological location landing In Christ.

There are obvious vectors of convergence amid Christianity and Islam even as there are obvious areas of divergence. The “Net-Result” (so to speak) is the question under review. The majority of content here is through links to comments within discussions about this topic. While that is tedious at times it does give all of us access to other comments in those same discussions and thereby to views and ideas which are wider (or narrower?) than the specific comment linked. Before we move to some of those links there is a brief item about one area of convergence. Of course BOTH Converging Vectors & Diverging Vectors will be looked at. So, with that clarification, a brief look at one area of convergence:

There are large swaths of overlapping / shared ontological real estate. As Christians our own Theology has spring-boarded off of the Muslim even as the Muslim spring-boarded off of the Christian, as per,

….What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument? The word “kalam” is an Arabic word that denotes medieval Islamic theology. Muslim theologians, when Islam swept over Egypt in North Africa, absorbed the Christian thought that had been in those areas, like in Alexandria, which was the center of Christian learning. They picked up these arguments for the creation of the world that Christians had been using against Greek materialists and other philosophers. They began to develop these arguments in highly sophisticated ways for the existence of God as the creator of the universe…. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/science-theology/the-scientific-kalam-cosmological-argument/

Romans 1 and 2 speak, in part, to that shared real estate. Which is fine. God does, after all, reveal Himself in and by such modes. To say that there are points of meaningful divergence is not to say that there are no points of meaningful overlap.

Convergence: Overlapping Vectors Common To Both Christianity & Islam

1. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/do_christians_and_muslims_worship_the_same_god/#comment-3427477841
2. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/12/christians-muslims-and-reference-of-god.html
3. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/12/christians-muslims-and-reference-of-god.html?showComment=1451340585694&m=1#c8738319691729111910
4. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/12/christians-muslims-and-reference-of-god.html?showComment=1451343600437&m=1#c5444564959582907786
5. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/12/christians-muslims-and-reference-of-god.html?showComment=1451353710075&m=1#c3009664321289014772

Converging Vectors + Diverging Vectors (Amid Christianity & Islam)

1. https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/07/whats-the-price-of-accepting-the-idea-we-worship-the-same-god-as-muslims.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c87d149a970b#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c87d149a970b
2. https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/07/whats-the-price-of-accepting-the-idea-we-worship-the-same-god-as-muslims.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb0920971d970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb0920971d970d
3. https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/07/whats-the-price-of-accepting-the-idea-we-worship-the-same-god-as-muslims.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb0920fb76970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb0920fb76970d

4. https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/07/whats-the-price-of-accepting-the-idea-we-worship-the-same-god-as-muslims.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb0920fc40970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb0920fc40970d
5. https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/07/whats-the-price-of-accepting-the-idea-we-worship-the-same-god-as-muslims.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201b8d20753fd970c#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201b8d20753fd970c
6. https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/07/whats-the-price-of-accepting-the-idea-we-worship-the-same-god-as-muslims.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb0921646e970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb0921646e970d

7. https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/07/whats-the-price-of-accepting-the-idea-we-worship-the-same-god-as-muslims.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201b8d207baaf970c#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201b8d207baaf970c
8. https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/07/whats-the-price-of-accepting-the-idea-we-worship-the-same-god-as-muslims.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb09220355970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb09220355970d
9. https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/07/whats-the-price-of-accepting-the-idea-we-worship-the-same-god-as-muslims.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb09222abe970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb09222abe970d

The Syntax of “Infidel” Contra The Syntax of “Gospel”

1. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/do_christians_and_muslims_worship_the_same_god/#comment-3426344202
2. http://disq.us/p/1wq0mgr

3. Comment #8 at https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/06/no-christian-leaders-are-not-seeking-theocracy/#comment-129181 which opens with “Christianity is a non-totalitarian metanarrative…..” and which is copy/pasted here:

Begin Copy/Paste ‘Comment #8’

Christianity is a non-totalitarian metanarrative:

ISIS = We Are Free To Love Another And Live?
ISIS = No One Is Compelled/Forced?
ISIS = Christ’s Open Arms to All?
ISIS = No One Is Refused?

And this is where the question of the outsider and/or the infidel becomes in Christianity an offense for the Door Himself Stands open to all of us and forces none of us. In the peculiar syntax of Gospel we, all, discover the only ontic-metric of The Good in the Why and How of the fact that the offensive Door Himself Stands open to all of us and forces none of us.

As per the following:

[1] https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/06/no-christian-leaders-are-not-seeking-theocracy/#comment-129174
[2] https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/06/no-christian-leaders-are-not-seeking-theocracy/#comment-129175
[3] https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/06/no-christian-leaders-are-not-seeking-theocracy/#comment-129176
[4] https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/06/no-christian-leaders-are-not-seeking-theocracy/#comment-129177
[5] https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2018/06/no-christian-leaders-are-not-seeking-theocracy/#comment-129181

End Copy/Paste ‘Comment #8’

4, https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/do_christians_and_muslims_worship_the_same_god/#comment-3428409550
5. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/do_christians_and_muslims_worship_the_same_god/#comment-3428409845
6. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/do_christians_and_muslims_worship_the_same_god/#comment-3428459757

“THE CURSINGS” is a chapter in the book “Reflections On The Psalms” by C.S. Lewis. The Non-Theist’s intellectually vacuous treatment of Hate & Ruin within the Human Metanarrative […by quoting Psalms “as-if” a verse is God speaking & Etc…] is there thoroughly exposed. Also on that same topic:

“THE CURSINGS” via https://metachristianity.com/the-cursings-via-the-psalms/  ((…formerly via Part 1: http://disq.us/p/1zktx3j and Part 2: http://disq.us/p/1wpwk7v …))

“Too Good to be False” is a book by T. Gilson and there is a discussion on the following: “…Does Too Good To Be False Make the Muslims’ Mistake of, ‘It’s Perfect, So It Must Be From God’…?” as per https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2020/10/does-too-good-too-be-false-make-muslims-mistake/

“Do Christians And Muslims Worship The Same God?” is a blogpost which adds different views especially in the comment section which follows the post (…about 90 comments all together…) and it is at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/do_christians_and_muslims_worship_the_same_god/

The final section will look at the layers within unavoidable divergence with respect to the Meta-Theology / Metaphysics of the Muslim and of the Christian. However, before we go “there”, let’s first add one more layer of convergence – not specific to Muslim/Christian per se – but rather with respect to all men:

We All Emote, Perceive, Intuit, And Reason Within The Same Pool

Christian: “….the fact that Christians do trust God in the midst of their suffering should be intriguing to atheists….”

Non-Theist: “….in the case of Allah, you are an atheist…When you see people worship him, even in difficult situations, you are not confused, intrigued or obsessed with getting to know Allah better. That is the same reaction “overall” atheists, who have given this topic any thought, have when we witness Christians doing the same thing. It is not a mystery….”

Non-Theist: “….Humans have a remarkable capacity for resilience in the face of very real suffering and threats to well-being; this is true irrespective of faith in a particular deity, or no faith at all….”

Non-Theist: “….anyone reading who thinks that is the only source of hope through suffering [should] know that there is hope even outside of Christianity….”

That is from http://disq.us/p/1sozwi7 which is more developed in “Atheists, Muslim, Christians, Hindus, Etc. All Emote, Perceive, And Intuit Within The Same Irreducible Transcendentals” at https://metachristianity.com/atheists-muslim-christians-hindus-etc-all-emote-perceive-and-intuit-within-the-same-irreducible-transcendentals/  Since breaking it all down is helpful, additional segues are in the following:

1. http://disq.us/p/22h38j5
2. http://disq.us/p/1w4405i
3. http://disq.us/p/1tmha4r
4. http://disq.us/p/1tm6e3x
5. http://disq.us/p/1sozwi7
6. http://disq.us/p/1w3sjkh

DIVERGENCE:

DIVERGENCE Between the Christian Metaphysic and Islam — PART 1:

A. Scripture’s Singular Metanarrative & Its Thematic Lines – See http://disq.us/p/1z5xdbk

B. Killing Gays? Why is it that Non-Theists per their Non-Theism do not factually disagree with the Old Testament’s execution of homosexuals while the Christian *does*? – See both http://disq.us/p/1wq69q1 and also http://disq.us/p/1veigyz

The Christian disagrees with Sinai’s execution of folks for sex outside of marriage (which includes homosexual sex) because of the moral facts presented in Scripture’s Old & New Testaments. As in — the Christian metaphysic and all that. Whereas, you don’t disagree with it in any factual, ontic mode as you’ve never appealed to anything other than illusory transcendentals.  Why don’t you disagree with said executions? I mean except by your mutable, frail, and finally indifferent ontic? It’s almost as if you believe — at bottom — that indifference is the end or terminus of the rational reply — of reason’s reply. […from three items at STR’s old format no longer available and so these links are placed here as place holders to be updated (when time permits) to their Disqus Links which are still online: http://disq.us/p/1lrhj88 and http://disq.us/p/1n5tabg …http://disq.us/p/1nay3nr …]

Brief Divergence:

A. Which comes first? Is it Immaterial & Ethic. Is it Material & Serotonin? See https://randalrauser.com/2018/07/does-the-bible-condemn-same-sex-relationships-a-response-to-michael-brown-part-3/#comment-3971857888

B. Premises, Legislation, & Reasoning Which Are Astonishingly Old-World In Their Thinking wrt The Forward March Of Science – See https://randalrauser.com/2018/07/does-the-bible-condemn-same-sex-relationships-a-response-to-michael-brown-part-3/#comment-4075654172

C. Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars? – First there are the series of links within  https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1245036826697633797  Second there are the series of links within https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1245036899154132994 Third there is http://disq.us/p/1u9rudl

End Brief Divergence.

DIVERGENCE (Between the Christian Metaphysic and Islam — PART 2:

Love’s Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis Being Itself vis-à-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving

1. Diversity within Unity in the History of Muslim Theology (by Glenn Miller) – http://christianthinktank.com/howtrin.html
2. God or Pure Act or “Being Itself” with respect to “Love Itself” cannot be World-Contingent or Creation-Contingent: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/love-and-justice-in-the-trinity/

3. In the Christian Metaphysic Man is not the Center. To posit otherwise is to posit a metaphysical impossibility. The center? Timeless reciprocity and a Self-Giving diffusiveness of the Ontic Self in totum — As in:

The Trinitarian Life & Love’s Ceaseless Self-Giving in and of and by the Always & Already ~ see both http://disq.us/p/1wq6j96  and also http://disq.us/p/1w3l3fn

In the Christian metanarrative we find the Trinitarian metaphysic and, therein, love’s timeless Self-Giving and irreducible Diffusiveness of the Ontic Self with respect to …being itself… and, thereby – once again – The Always and The Already, that which is ceaselessly Beneath and Above – namely “Love & Necessity” as an ontic *singularity* ~

It is there that we find in the Christian metaphysic the intellectual and moral grounds for affirming the term, “Love Himself” vis-à-vis the A and the Z of the Trinitarian Life / Trinity with respect to the Decree of the Imago Dei, and all that comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there that we find nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being – and all that comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there in nothing less than Being that we find The Always and The Already constituting love’s timeless reciprocity and Self-Giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum, and all that comes with “that”.

It is *that* explanatory terminus which is reality’s rock-bottom, reality’s irreducible substratum – the A and the Z of every possible ontic, of every possible sentence.

Recall that we are still discussing “Divergence“.  The following are from http://thesometimespreacher.com/2016/01/the-beauty-of-the-infinite-by-david-bentley-hart/

“…..The rhetoric of God is Jesus Christ, offered as pure gift. As gift, Christ is infinite peace. As both gift and the rhetoric of peace, Christ is beauty, the magnificent demonstration of the self-giving love of the Trinity which crosses all boundaries, even the boundary of death….”

Two quotes of D.B. Hart from that book review:

“…..that one may speak, within the Christian tradition, of a rhetoric of peace, of a practice of rhetoric that is peaceful, because rhetoric and beauty are both already narrated by Christian thought as peace, obedient to a particular understanding of the infinite: beauty is prior to sublimity [tragic beauty] and infinity surpasses totality [the power of world systems]. Moreover, the concrete form of Christian rhetoric – Christ, the Father’s supreme rhetoric, his Word – appears within the terms of this Christian narrative of the infinite as the very form of peace, the infinite gesture of a love that simply exceeds the gesture of every violence brought against it, the real and visible beauty whose historical and aesthetic particularity invites response and variation and whose effect can inhabit time not simply as negation but as a practicable style of existence…..”

“….The God who goes to the outermost of being, in the form of a slave, and even past the limits of being into the silence of death, but who then nevertheless – and in just this particular and “slavish” shape – offers himself anew as a radiant and indestructible beauty, forever present in the midst of those who love him, has violated all Apollonian order and, at the same time, left no room for the Dionysian to occupy: the madness, turmoil, chaos, and cruelty of being, the ungovernable violence of the pagan infinite and postmodern sublime, is shown to be falsehood, lying everlastingly under the damnation of the cross, because the infinite that is has crossed all the boundaries of totality (even death, its defining horizon) and remained – forever – form. Nietzsche has every right to be appalled. Christian rhetoric, therefore, offers Christ as rhetoric, as beauty, but also has presence, mediated aesthetically by an endless parataxis of further ‘statements’ for just that reason all the more present (a presence that is rhetoric cannot be estranged from itself or made remote by the interminable deferral of rhetoric, so long as the style of its excess is sustained); the church’s only task is to enact and offer this form. As the story of Thomas’s doubt emphasizes, the resurrection of Christ imparts anew the real presence of this same Jesus of Nazareth, and in the power of the Holy Spirit he draws ever nearer, becomes ever more present, in an ever greater display of the various power of his presence. This is a beauty that does not hover over or beyond history, recalled as privation and hoped for simply as futurity, but pervades time as a music that now even the most frenetic din of violence cannot drown out….”

Mapping Infinite Consciousness

The peculiar descent & ascent of all possible syntax into/out-of Presentism and into/out-of Eternalism leave Metaphysical Naturalism in ruins – whereas – Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to Time & Timelessness. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the First Adam. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the Last Adam. To attempt the claim of, “Pure Act Becomes” entails an Uphill Ontic with respect to Pure Act (…which is a metaphysical absurdity…). Pure Act in the Downhill Ontic reveals – Communicates – all ontic possibility (… https://metachristianity.com/absolute-reference-frame-pure-act-incarnation-time/ …). There is an unavoidable sense in which [Logos v. Divine Simplicity] is by logical necessity GREATER than [Logos v. Time & Temporal Becoming] just as within that same [Logos v. Time & Temporal Becoming] we find Logos as Son being made perfect – as per the following:

Divine Simplicity:

• https://theologiansinc.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/divine-simplicity-east-west-and-barth/
• https://theologiansinc.wordpress.com/2016/12/03/a-triune-monarchy-t-f-torrances-correction-of-karl-barths-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
• https://theologiansinc.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/a-rather-simple-concern/
• https://theologiansinc.wordpress.com/2017/02/03/7608/

The Father Is Greater Than The Son:

There is an unavoidable sense in which [Logos v. Divine Simplicity] is by logical necessity GREATER than [Logos v. Time & Temporal Becoming] just as within that same [Logos v. Time & Temporal Becoming] we find Logos as Son being made perfect – as per the following ~ […from items at STR’s old format no longer available and so these links are placed here as place holders to be updated (when time permits) to their Disqus Links which are still online: http://disq.us/p/1kvdayd   http://disq.us/p/1kx8ayr …]  See also https://metachristianity.com/absolute-reference-frame-pure-act-incarnation-time/ and see also https://metachristianity.com/genesis-quantum-worlds-allegory-metaphor-divine-communique-transposition/

Those two links discuss the peculiar descent & ascent of all possible syntax into/out-of Presentism and into/out-of Eternalism. Added context:

1. http://disq.us/p/1w3m9x8
2. http://disq.us/p/1w4283r
3. http://disq.us/p/1wtd2v3
4. http://disq.us/p/1w40gqv
5. http://disq.us/p/1w3dmo7

The Divine Mind

“……the concept of being is one of power: the power of actuality, the capacity to affect or to be affected. To be is to act. This definition already implies that, in its fullness, being must also be consciousness, because the highest power to act — and hence the most unconditioned and unconstrained reality of being — is rational mind. Absolute being, therefore, must be absolute mind. Or, in simpler terms, the greater the degree of something’s actuality, the greater the degree of its consciousness, and so infinite actuality is necessarily infinite consciousness. That, at least, is one way of trying to describe another essential logical intuition that recurs in various forms throughout the great theistic metaphysical systems. It is the conviction that in God lies at once the deepest truth of mind and the most universal truth of existence, and that for this reason the world can truly be known by us. Whatever else one might call this vision of things, it is most certainly, in a very real sense, a kind of “total rationalism.” (David Bentley Hart.)

And again from D.B.H.,

“To speak of God, however, as infinite consciousness, which is identical to infinite being, is to say that in Him the ecstasy of mind is also the perfect satiety of achieved knowledge, of perfect wisdom. God is both the knower and the known, infinite intelligence and infinite intelligibility. This is to say that, in Him, rational appetite is perfectly fulfilled, and consciousness perfectly possesses the end it desires.” (D.B. Hart)

The Divine Mind Compels the Trinitarian Metaphysic:

Consciousness in *GOD* forces distinction void of division: It is uncanny that while, say, “Power” or “Goodness” or “Truth” all speak to some contour within Divine Simplicity such do not expressly and immediately force distinct centers of consciousness, whereas, while still within that same landscape, we do eventually come upon the affairs of *GOD* vis-à-vis Infinite Consciousness and, once we arrive “there”, we discover that the Divine Mind necessarily entails three irreducible and Infinite Loci of that which (…by logical necessity…) cannot be less than Infinite Consciousness which – it so happens – cannot be less than “Being In Totum“.

Consciousness in *GOD* finds distinction void of division: The trio of the Infinite Knower (…which in Infinite and Irreducible Consciousness cannot be less than Being in totum….) and of the Infinitely Known (…which in Infinite and Irreducible Consciousness cannot be less than Being in totum…) and of all Communique/Procession vis-à-vis Logos therein (…which is both *of* infinite consciousness and also *is* infinite consciousness, which cannot be less than Being in totum…) carries – compels even – logic and reason into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic (…. https://metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/ ….).

 

 

End.

This is currently located at the Blogger / MetaChristianity page, specifically at:

https://metachristianity.blogspot.com/2018/04/faith-evidence-hebrews-11-trusting.html