The Absolute’s Reference Frame, Pure Act, Incarnation, Time, the Truly Human, and the Last Adam
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:
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
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….
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  Truly Human and  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.
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.