Actus Purus and Time/Free Will

[Dimmesdale]

So, at best, “argument from authority” just means “I don’t want to play by ya’lls’ rules, so I’m gonna take my ball and go home.”

Well… I have my own sources of authority, and those are at odds with yours but… I don’t see how productive that could be to talk at length about them. I don’t think any good purpose would be served. Is there any good (philosophical) purpose for you to assert your Church’s authority?

It’s a nice assertion to make… but how would you prove that it is true? “He would only know…” is true why ? Not seeing the logic there.

Practically, we don’t see babies coming out of the womb with knowledge of physics. Boarded up houses, we don’t assume to be full of light. Instead, it is natural to see these things wedded to other things in a web of causation and interplay, assuming that they are this way from prior instances. Why would God be any different? It seems all you can say is “God knowz cuz’ He knowz.” This is counterintuitive, so the onus is on you to present evidence that your God is somehow special, that, by some brute fact he knows everything but never had any relation to his knowledge.

Every-when

I don’t think so, because, I still don’t see how Socrates is not still drinking poison then. But, alas, I give up.

It’s not “vision”; it’s knowledge. If it were otherwise, He would have to act in order to observe, and that implies change in God, which then changes the definition of God as immutable. So… it doesn’t really work out.

I would say it appears to us, in relation to our reality, that God “changes”, but for God, he occupies only the eternal position.

 

[Gorgias]

Well… I have my own sources of authority, and those are at odds with yours but… I don’t see how productive that could be to talk at length about them. I don’t think any good purpose would be served. Is there any good (philosophical) purpose for you to assert your Church’s authority?

I rely on Jesus, and the reliability of the events of his life and reports of his resurrection and reappearance on earth. If that doesn’t demonstrate “he really is who he said he is”, I don’t know what does.

Practically, we don’t see babies coming out of the womb with knowledge of physics. Boarded up houses, we don’t assume to be full of light. Instead, it is natural to see these things wedded to other things in a web of causation and interplay, assuming that they are this way from prior instances. Why would God be any different?

Because “nature of God” =/= “nature of objects in the physical world”.

When you compare apples to oranges, you end up with horribly inaccurate conclusions.

It seems all you can say is “God knowz cuz’ He knowz.”

LOL! No… I’m saying that it proceeds from the definition of who/what God is. It also proceeds from His self-revelation (again, see above for my take on its reliabililty, vis-a-vis Jesus).

This is counterintuitive, so the onus is on you to present evidence that your God is somehow special, that, by some brute fact he knows everything but never had any relation to his knowledge.

I think I’ve done that. The argument proceeds from “Jesus’ proof that he is who he says he is”, to “Jesus’ grant of proxy authority to the Church” and “Jesus’ promise that the Church won’t get doctrine wrong”, to “the things the Church declares doctrinally.”

So, if you want “scientific evidence”, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. (After all, if I asked for scientific evidence of your “Indian guru / panentheism” thought, that would be impossible to substantiate scientifically too, right?)

I don’t think so, because, I still don’t see how Socrates is not still drinking poison then.

You asked about God, not Socrates. Socrates isn’t eternally drinking poison.

I would say it appears to us , in relation to our reality, that God “changes”, but for God, he occupies only the eternal position.

It would be interesting to flesh that notion out…

 

[Dimmesdale]

I rely on Jesus, and the reliability of the events of his life and reports of his resurrection and reappearance on earth. If that doesn’t demonstrate “he really is who he said he is”, I don’t know what does.

We’re talking about the nature of time and eternity though, not with the claims of Jesus, no?

Because “nature of God” =/= “nature of objects in the physical world”.

When you compare apples to oranges, you end up with horribly inaccurate conclusions.

That’s a very mystical move. An obscurantist move, almost, I’d say. It seems you can choose to say anything about God if you remove him from logical discourse. I know you think that’s not what you’re doing, but I think you are.

What I would say is univocal is that there is an explanatory mechanism that should apply to both categories.With physical things, this mechanism is explicated by physical relations of facts. God, though not physical, would also need to be related to some facts beyond himself. These relations of fact need not be physical, but they need to be relations of facts nonetheless. So in that sense I don’t think I’m comparing apples to oranges.

But, that’s me.

LOL! No… I’m saying that it proceeds from the definition of who/what God is. It also proceeds from His self-revelation (again, see above for my take on its reliabililty, vis-a-vis Jesus).

So… all our free will decisions then proceed from the very definition of who/what God is, from eternity “past”? Then there is no free will. There is only a set pattern, manifesting now in time. Like a jack-in-the-box after its loaded its spring.

I think I’ve done that. The argument proceeds from “Jesus’ proof that he is who he says he is”, to “Jesus’ grant of proxy authority to the Church” and “Jesus’ promise that the Church won’t get doctrine wrong”, to “the things the Church declares doctrinally.”

So, if you want “scientific evidence”, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. (After all, if I asked for scientific evidence of your “Indian guru / panentheism” thought, that would be impossible to substantiate scientifically too, right?)

I’m not looking for “scientific” evidence. I’m just looking for what makes logical sense. I do not see how your logic makes sense.

You asked about God , not Socrates . Socrates isn’t eternally drinking poison

Yes, but if God’s “when” is “everywhen” then Socrates is still drinking poison, because God is sustaining him at that moment, being present at that moment. Either that, or I completely misunderstand.

It would be interesting to flesh that notion out…

Some things may elude our analytical net.

 

[Gorgias]

We’re talking about the nature of time and eternity though, not with the claims of Jesus, no?

Well, yes and no. The claims of Jesus – which substantiate assertions of divinity and of God’s nature – also give authority to the Church. So, when the Church teaches “about the nature of time and eternity”, these teachings are grounded in the bases of Christ, His divinity, and His grant of authority. The one proceeds from the other.

That’s a very mystical move. An obscurantist move, almost, I’d say. It seems you can choose to say anything about God if you remove him from logical discourse. I know you think that’s not what you’re doing, but I think you are.

No, not at all. I’m not saying “let’s remove God from logical discourse”; rather, I’m saying “let’s not make the invalid move of conflating God with His creation or extrapolating from creation to God.” We can say what we wish (inasmuch as it’s warranted), but what we can’t do is make the move you just did: “well, if the world is like this, then so must be God, as well.”

What I would say is univocal is that there is an explanatory mechanism that should apply to both categories.

Hmm. That sounds merely like a different way to define “analogous”. They’re distinct and different concepts, but you have an “explanatory mechanism” that connects the similar characteristics between the two distinct categories.

So in that sense I don’t think I’m comparing apples to oranges.

But, that’s me.

Essentially, what you’re saying is “apples and oranges are similar in that they are both fruits and both grow on trees.” That holds, as far as it goes, but you can’t use these similarities in order to say “the nature of ‘apple’ is the same as the nature of ‘orange’”, which is what you attempted to do in your post.

So… all our free will decisions then proceed from the very definition of who/what God is, from eternity “past”? Then there is no free will. There is only a set pattern, manifesting now in time. Like a jack-in-the-box after its loaded its spring.

Nope. You’re just falling back into the “foreknowledge == predestination” error, here.

I do not see how your logic makes sense.

OK. However, I proceeded from “general authority” to “specific example of the application of authority”. That seems pretty self-evident.

Yes, but if God’s “when” is “everywhen” then Socrates is still drinking poison, because God is sustaining him at that moment, being present at that moment . Either that, or I completely misunderstand.

I think you do. God’s “now” does not extent any moment of Socrates’ life to eternity.

Dimmesdale:

Some things may elude our analytical net.

Or our patience and free time…

 

[Dimmesdale]

Or our patience and free time…

I have decided to leave aside this topic. This is both not to waste your time and also for me to pursue my own spiritual life, and not indulge in endless speculation. There is more to the life of the mind (and soul) than just rehashing the same subjects over and over again. I could try to engage with you some more but this doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. So, for all these reasons, I think it is best to move on.

However, thank you for your time and patience. I should also point out, that I am under no obligation to be committed to this point of view (at least, not in its entirety). The authority which I bow to has not outlined this specific philosophical view, I have come to it myself… however, perhaps I myself should question it. I will actually inquire to my authority about it. Maybe I am seeing this topic with tunnel vision after all.

Thanks!

 

[Gorgias]

I have decided to leave aside this topic. This is both not to waste your time and also for me to pursue my own spiritual life, and not indulge in endless speculation.

I could try to engage with you some more but this doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

We’re both holding to our own positions, and not assenting to the other’s. Got it.

I will actually inquire to my authority about it.

Blessings!
G.