Most vile concept/aspect of christianity?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
When it is said of God that He is "outside of time," it is said in relation to what boundaries exist, not that He is unable to see/know anything of time. While God is free from boundary of time parameters, He knows all things at all times.

We live in terms of chronology, cause and effect, etc., and are certainly bound in our knowledge to logical order ...[text shortened]... because He has always known everything. This is God's mentality connected with His infinity.

Exactly. And under these assumptions, vistesd's proof is valid.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I was explicitly referring to it in the context of a non-divine, temporally bounded knower.

Then apply vistesd's proof to the same sort of being. It doesn't assume divinity or the escape of temporal bounds.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b](1) An omniscient being G knows with certainty at time (t(e)-t) that an event E will occur at time t(e).

Generally, okay. A few observations, though:

Obs 1: I've argued in this thread that God is an agent outside time, therefore it makes as much (or no more) sense to speak of God knowing something "at time t(e)-t" as speaking of Go ...[text shortened]... for the same reason - although it cannot be known (because it isn't true).[/b]

So, your argument really deals with foreknowledge.

As I noted in my post to Freaky. At least from the point of view of this time-space cosmos, I think that God’s knowing everything “all at once” reduces to foreknowledge (again, not using this term in the technical/theological sense as in Freaky’s “Divine Decree” thread).

What this means is that (2) above can be interpreted as "~E is logically consistent with all causally prior events that have occurred as of t(e)-t".

I would argue that at t(e)-t: (1) all casual events have already occurred to determine either E or ~E, or (2) there is still the possibility that another causal event could occur to determine E or ~E. In the latter case, the final event is not yet causally determined. In the former case, either it is, or the outcome is random. At the instant E occurs, ~E is no longer logically possible in that world (and I think Dr. Scribble’s point about confining our discussion to a single world is salient).

If causality is not temporally unidirectional, then the same situation holds at the “juncture” of both t(e)-t and t(e)+t. To argue that causality is not temporally unidirectional is not the same thing as to argue that there is no temporality whatsoever.

You are making an assumption here - that a causal sequence will be temporally unidirectional; i.e. if A causes B, then A will precede B in time. This is the assumption I've challenged throughout this thread.

If causal sequences in this world are not at least in some sense temporally unidirectional, then it is logically possible that “tomorrow” (from our perspective) the entire history of the world up till “now” will appear to us to be radically different. This seems to me to kick the legs out from under any epistemology at all. We simply do not have an epistemology that is atemporal (again, I agree with Scrib’s point above regarding whether or not t(e) is well-defined).

[NOTE: That is why it seems to me that so-called “spooky action at a distance” is so epistemologically challenging—again, from my extremely limited understanding of physics.]

The notion of God not being time-bound in any way (if that’s what you’re saying, and Freaky as well) seems to me to be technically incoherent. Such an assertion divorces God completely from this world (cosmos) physically, metaphysically and epistemologically. One can say absolutely nothing about such a God’s relationship to this world except as an assertion, that seems to me to be no more epistemologically grounded (and maybe less) than to attribute events to magical spells (at least such spells are subject to the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy).

Originally posted by vistesd
So, your argument really deals with foreknowledge.

As I noted in my post to Freaky. At least from the point of view of this time-space cosmos, I think that God’s knowing everything “all at once” reduces to foreknowledge (again, not using this term in the technical/theological sense as in Freaky’s “Divine Decree” thread).

What this mea l spells (at least such spells are subject to the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy).

The notion of God not being time-bound in any way (if that’s what you’re saying, and Freaky as well) seems to me to be technically incoherent.
My understanding of time-boundedness refers to limitations of the being, and in this case, the juxtaposition of man to God's being. Man is time-bound, and will always be as such, even in eternity future. Eternity future refers to duration, not lack of time. Man is eternally time-bound, sensing and being in time. God is not thusly bound, able to be outside of it and interact within it.

While I am not a big proponent of using the physical world to illustrate the spiritual, there are similarities. For instance, one may consider a balloon as illustrative of the physical world with man conducting his affairs on the surface of the balloon. The holder of the balloon is able to see the entire balloon at once, touch the balloon at any point desired, and yet not be on the balloon himself.

I know, limited and unfortunately so. However, the point is close to reality. Another analogy would be of an author and his book/story. While outside of the realm of the fictional world encompassed within the bounds of the story, the author nonetheless is able to transcend into the world therein.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The notion of God not being time-bound in any way (if that’s what you’re saying, and Freaky as well) seems to me to be technically incoherent.
My understanding of time-boundedness refers to limitations of the being, and in this case, the juxtaposition of man to God's being. Man is time-bound, and will always be as such, even in eternity future. E ...[text shortened]... in the bounds of the story, the author nonetheless is able to transcend into the world therein.[/b]

I have no problem with those analogies, per se (most analogies are limited).

My point is this: humanity is epistemologically in time, as well as physically. An eternal future is coherent. A conscious state of complete timelessness is not—although there may be states of such present focus that, ex post facto, they seem to have been timeless; but that is a psychological affair.

To speculate on a being “outside” of the natural time-space order can never be more than that. It also lies outside our epistemological ability. To use your analogy: there may or may not be a balloon-holder. Whether or not there is, is ultimately unknowable; further, because the very architecture of our consciousness is determined by our being in the balloon, anything we say about such a balloon-holder will put him/her inside the balloon, so to speak. And we can’t even know to what extent we’re doing that, since we can’t even know that we’re talking about something real to begin with.

To speak about such a being him/herself “bridging the gap” via “divine revelation” is the same kind of speculation. It is no more epistemologically defeasible than my magic spell.

NOTE: Once more I will add my caveat regarding mystical (in the technical sense) experience: (1) such experiences do not require any speculation about the supernatural; (2) to the extent that such experiences are effable, it is because they have already been “translated” by the brain/mind into content that is coherent to our consciousness—thus the same epistemological problem surfaces with regard to any such “translations” as well.

EDIT: We are not only in the balloon/book/natural cosmos; we are also of the balloon/book/natural cosmos.

Originally posted by vistesd

An eternal future is coherent. A conscious state of complete timelessness is not...
For us, I concede that point.

To speculate on a being “outside” of the natural time-space order can never be more than that. It also lies outside our epistemological ability.
I agree, thus the need for revelation. I see our understanding of kosmos as suggesting/pointing to/requiring a creator, without being able to provide the same outside of generalization. That, coupled with the personal nature of man, narrow this generalization down further. IMO, the God described in the Bible most accurately fills the bill, eliminating the need for magic spells and any other type of guess work.

EDIT: We are not only in the balloon/book/natural cosmos; we are also of the balloon/book/natural cosmos.
He was in the world, but not of it!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]An eternal future is coherent. A conscious state of complete timelessness is not...
For us, I concede that point.

To speculate on a being “outside” of the natural time-space order can never be more than that. It also lies outside our epistemological ability.
I agree, thus the need for revelation. I see our understanding of kosmos as s ...[text shortened]... we are also of the balloon/book/natural cosmos.[/b]
He was in the world, but not of it![/b]

I agree, thus the need for revelation.

As I said, I think revelation faces the same epistemological issues; so does the positing of a God-Man who is in but not of the natural order. I think that the supernatural God is a speculation for the purpose of grounding meaning outside the natural cosmos (for reasons alluded to below), and that divine revelation is a further speculation for the purpose of solving the problem of how one can know such a God given our epistemological boundedness within the natural cosmos.

I wrote the following before I read your post, and simply appended the foregoing response to it:

________________________________________

By the way, I think there are some ways out of all this for the theist; but they don’t seem acceptable to many theists.

One is simply to admit the speculative choice, and to argue for the normative and aesthetic worldview (or way of living) that it offers vis-à-vis others. I do think that you lose some of the “absoluteness” of the foundations in doing so.

One is to simply admit that the God of supernatural theism is ultimately as ineffable as I submit the “ground of being” (or “being-itself” ) is, although for different reasons.

One is to simply admit that the “passionate mind” (to steal from LemonJello) naturally seeks to impose meaning on a world that, to it, otherwise seems absurd. That is, we make up “stories of meaning”—in the face of either the absurd or the ineffable—and then argue that “this one is a good’un.”

In other words, there may be perfectly reasonable reasons for adopting a viewpoint of supernatural theism (again, it is not my viewpoint)—including aesthetic ones—as long as one recognizes them. For example, when Ivanhoe simply says, “Catholicism is a lamp to guide my feet,” the only possible argument I could mount would be based on my own judgments about where his feet are going. In the end, I only say, “May that path be for you and others a way of blessing.”

NOTE to Ivanhoe: I managed to use vis-à-vis and per se both in the same post! 😉

Even as we seek to narrow down and define truth, we are conceding that truth exists, and it is accessible. "As near as we (I) can tell," the Bible speaks of that truth.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Even as we seek to narrow down and define truth, we are conceding that truth exists, and it is accessible. "As near as we (I) can tell," the Bible speaks of that truth.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so—

Is your position basically that:

(1) We are able, by reason and experience (empiricism), to apprehend certain truths about the world; and

(2) The Bible is sufficiently validated by the way it “fits” with those truths to give epistemic sanction for accepting—or at least exploring—its other claims, including its supernatural ones (e.g., the reality and attributes of God)?*

This seems to me to be a “bottom up” approach, akin to, say C.S. Lewis' argument for the reality of God based on natural law.

* I know this is a terribly simplistic way of putting it, overlooking, for example, hermeneutics.

Generally speaking, I'd say that touches on the main gist of it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Generally speaking, I'd say that touches on the main gist of it.

I think I'm getting a handle on where it is exactly that we part company. But my brain's cracked right now, and I want to let it percolate a bit... 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
I have no problem with those analogies, per se (most analogies are limited).

My point is this: humanity is epistemologically in time, as well as physically. An eternal future is coherent. A conscious state of complete timelessness is not—although there may be states of such present focus that, ex post facto, they seem to have been timeles ...[text shortened]... ]in[/i] the balloon/book/natural cosmos; we are also of the balloon/book/natural cosmos.

further, because the very architecture of our consciousness is determined by our being in the balloon, anything we say about such a balloon-holder will put him/her inside the balloon, so to speak.

Yes, yes, yes. This is a fundamental and bottomless source of futility for the passionate mind. We can pause, lay our music and merriment aside, and point our fingers toward that moon. But in our subsequent attempt to characterize, through representation, the object of our momentary obsession, what inevitably spews forth is some sort of inane drivel. And commonly, all that results is a silly project grounded in anthropomorphism, or, even worse, the mistaking of our finger for the moon itself. Our thought may be able to point us in a general direction (like the finger), but it is probably rather foolish, or just wishful, to think that our thoughts will bring us any knowledge concerning the nature of that moon. The aforementioned inane drivel is specific to the undertaking of a dedicated, organized project aimed at securing such divine knowledge. What it is NOT specific to, however, are the disorganized, lively expressions of the passionate mind. Here, I am talking about those expressions that we merely sketch out by hand, or, as Philip Levine might say, that come and go 'in a form we have no words for'. To put it another way, I would much rather be whirling in song and dance about the fire than pointing toward the moon in a sad state of mental masturbation. That of course only begs the question of why I laid down my instrument in the first place.

But that moon is just so shiny. If I recall correctly, when I read Where the Red Fern Grows as a lad, it described how Billy would set traps for the coons: he would bore a small hole into a log, drive some nails into the hole at an angle around its perimeter, and then put something shiny at the bottom of the hole, like foil. The coon, attracted to the shiny unknown object, would reach in and grab hold of it, but the nails painfully would not allow the coon to extract his clenched fist from the hole. The coon would basically trap himself by stubbornly refusing to unclench his fist and drop the shiny object of his obssession. I have absolutely no idea if such a coon trap actually works or if I am recalling the method accurately, but it's probably a fitting analogy nonetheless.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]further, because the very architecture of our consciousness is determined by our being in the balloon, anything we say about such a balloon-holder will put him/her inside the balloon, so to speak.

Yes, yes, yes. This is a fundamental and bottomless source of futility for the passionate mind. We can pause, lay our music and merriment asi or if I am recalling the method accurately, but it's probably a fitting analogy nonetheless.[/b]

All this has driven me back to Zen. Hence I started a new thread.

The basis for the absurdity/ineffability seems to me to be this: The ground of the form-making mind is emptiness. This needs to be experienced.

I am using emptiness in the Zen Buddhist sense. It is empty because it is before—or “underneath”—the form-making activity of the mind. (One might also call it a “vast clarity.” ) It is empty precisely because it is the ground. Perhaps I could call it the “noumenon” of the phenomenal mind, without risking too much.

The Heart Sutra says, “Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.” Emptiness becomes form, forms return to emptiness. Illusion is to become “one-sided.”

For myself, I try not to leap from this statement of consciousness to a larger metaphysics. However, I will risk this—

The whole-of-the-whole-of-everything-in-itself is ineffable because there is no handle for comparative discourse: it is the One without a second, or else it is not the whole of being. What we can say of the forms is by comparison and contrast—either among themselves or vis-à-vis the remainder of the ground out of which they stand (exist) as forms, or figures. What we can say of the ground can only be said vis-à-vis the forms that stand out from it—otherwise it is a forever blank, with no edges. One may be able to induce things from the forms, but the portion of the ground that becomes apparent in light of the figure is not the whole ground.

From the forms and their relationships we can assume that the ground, the whole, is coherent: since the forms and their “entanglement” appears to be coherent.

The problem is, our very mind, the form of our consciousness, is also of the whole affair—the tathata, or suchness or thusness or thisness of the entire fabric of reality. Our consciousness itself is entangled in it. We cannot extricate ourselves in order to attain “view from nowhere,” or even a view from elsewhere. Our minds are part of the coherence.

Therefore, we speak in koans, riddles, metaphors, parables, myths and stories—only to try to indirectly indicate the ocean in which and of which we are; not a “moon” out there somewhere (Hafiz and the Zen parable speak differently here).

One cannot “solve” a koan by thinking about it. Nevertheless, here is the second koan I have really worked on:

Behind the makings of your mind,
Before all images, thoughts or words—

What?

_________________________________

EDIT: My apologies for hijacking the thread here; but I really mean it when I say that all this wonderful argument has driven me back to Zen, again... 🙂

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Then apply vistesd's proof to the same sort of being. It doesn't assume divinity or the escape of temporal bounds.

I am critiquing vistesd's proof in the context of temporal bounds.

Originally posted by vistesd
To speculate on a being “outside” of the natural time-space order can never be more than that. It also lies outside our epistemological ability.

Just a short response.

You're confusing our inability to visualise a being (or state) "outside" space-time with our (alleged) inability to know (or conceptualise) such a being.

This might make it clear - human beings cannot visualise what a four-dimensional object would look like (well, Penrose excepted). That doesn't mean we cannot conceptualise 4D objects, or that we cannot know anything about them - thousands of mathematicians and physicists work with them every day.

A similar example would be the case of i - the square root of -1.

Human beings are able to conceptualise and attain knowledge about all kinds of things that are "outside" the natural order.