pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

and Pro is turning and turning and turning …we showed that the concept is not a contradiction yet Pro attacks the analogy by any possible means

And he adds far more to our analogies in order to disprove them than anything we’ve ever even dreamed of adding to his.

Very well then. It’s time to put pro’s ophiomancy to rest.

I’ll be back.

 

[inJESUS]

Yes, but why doesn’t he just ask? Ask the Trinity to help him understand. Believing in the Trinity requires supernatural faith. Pro is looking for a way to believe in the Trinity be natural means. I can assure you that by those means, it is impossible, but not when God gives the soul supernatural faith. You have to ask. He is trying to find out God with natural reason, when it requires supernatural faith.

well what can i call a person who claims the Trinity is contradictory but has warm feelings toward Muhammad who claimed Jesus put his resemblance on someone else, which is the peak of irrationality?
If Trinity needs faith, believing Muhammad needs a miracle

Mr. Ex-Nihilo, waiting for you

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

well what can i call a person who claims the Trinity is contradictory but has warm feelings toward Muhammad who claimed Jesus put his resemblance on someone else, which is the peak of irrationality?
If Trinity needs faith, believing Muhammad needs a miracle

Mr. Ex-Nihilo, waiting for you

I’ll be responding tomorrow.

In the meantime, I’ll just briefly interject that the philosophy of space and time is the branch of philosophy which deals with issues surrounding the ontology, epistemology and the very character of space and time itself.

In fact, the philosophy of space and time has been central to philosophy itself from its inception-- and this philosophy is in itself the inspiration for, and central to, early analytic philosophy too.

If pro thinks he can so easilly dismiss 2,500 years worth of philosophical thought by comparing the trinitarian nature of time to three qualities of a fish…

 

[tequilamac]

Yes, but why doesn’t he just ask? Ask the Trinity to help him understand. Believing in the Trinity requires supernatural faith. Pro is looking for a way to believe in the Trinity be natural means. I can assure you that by those means, it is impossible, but not when God gives the soul supernatural faith. You have to ask. He is trying to find out God with natural reason, when it requires supernatural faith.

This is exactly what is wrong with all the arguments presented by the “faithful” Catholics here toward Pro. The lack of understanding that Pro is not in life by himself and does not make all of his decisions alone. God is here also. Faith is a supernatural gift that comes from God and God alone. At this time Pro is lacking in it. God gives and God can also for His own reasons known only to Himself allow a person to lose it. People here, Mr. Ex Nihilio, InJesus, and yourself, for all your impassioned arguments toward Pro refuse to see or allow the fact that God is part of Pro’s equation. In a sort of Job way, although Job was faithful to his God, Job felt that he had control and his friends tried hard to find out what Job had done to cause his own misfortunes. Ultimately, it was not until Job realized that God was acting on His own that Job repented and his fortunes restored. Pro’s decision to leave the Church and abandon his faith was his own conscious choice. But God was there and knew it occurred and He did not stop Pro did He? God knows where Pro is now. And God allows it. To ask for a return of faith requires an action on God’s part. No one can ask for faith or receive faith or even notice it lacking without God being the first inciter of that action. It would be better for Pro and everyone here if the so impassioned toward Pro spent their energies speaking to God. When God chooses, Pro will be inspired to ask for faith and Pro will receive faith and not a minute sooner than God will allow for all your arguing and logic and philosophies. It almost is as if the blind are leading the blind here. You are all talking to the wrong guy, people. Very much like all of Job’s friends who carried on about the nature of God for years with Job to no avail.

 

[eleonardo]

Yes, but why doesn’t he just ask? Ask the Trinity to help him understand. Believing in the Trinity requires supernatural faith. Pro is looking for a way to believe in the Trinity be natural means. I can assure you that by those means, it is impossible, but not when God gives the soul supernatural faith. You have to ask. He is trying to find out God with natural reason, when it requires supernatural faith.

I said something similar ± 500 posts ago.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The time analogy is perhaps the worst one I’ve ever seen. (The best of the inadequate analogies is the picture or sculpture analogy, but those fail anyway because they depend on a point of view-not something you want to do in explaining God.)

Pro, have you actually prayed to God about this?

Since other have brought this up, I said a rosary for you tonight and I thought I would ask you this question before I proceed further.

 

[pro_universal]

Pro, have you actually prayed to God about this?

Since other have brought this up, I said a rosary for you tonight and I thought I would ask you this question before I proceed further.

Absolutely I have prayed about it. I didn’t leave my lifetime faith easily.

But reason is public, anyway. If something is reasonable, you shouldn’t need to believe in Jesus in order to see that it’s reasonable. To require that would defy the very definition of the word.

The example of time as a “trinity” is an unreasonable one because there is no “trinity of time” in philosophy of time, scientific theories of time, or anything remotely related. The only “trinity” is in the simple labels you used in order to find one in nature.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Absolutely I have prayed about it. I didn’t leave my lifetime faith easily.

Just checking.

pro:

But reason is public, anyway. If something is reasonable, you shouldn’t need to believe in Jesus in order to see that it’s reasonable. To require that would defy the very definition of the word.

No. That’s only half true. It’s both faith and reason.

pro:

The example of time as a “trinity” is an unreasonable one because there is no “trinity of time” in philosophy of time, scientific theories of time, or anything remotely related. The only “trinity” is in the simple labels you used in order to find one in nature.

Really? No trinities in the philosophy of time nor in the scientific theories of time either?

No. That’s just plain wrong– and that’s just scratching the surface.

For example, connected with the creation of the world is the problem of time, for time has its beginning with creation. But what is time? What is its real nature? Augustine observes that time is essentially constituted of a past, a present, and a future; without this division it would be impossible to speak of time. But the past is not existent, for it has passed; nor does the future exist, for it has yet to come; the present is the moment which joins the past with the future.

Now it would be foolish to deny the reality of time. We speak of time as long or short, and that which has no reality cannot be either long or short. To solve the difficulty Augustine has recourse to the intellective memory, which records the past and foresees the future. Thus both the past and the future are made present to the memory, and here time finds its reality of length and brevity. For Augustine, then, as the Scholastics were to say later, time is a being of reason with a foundation in things which through becoming offer to the mind the concept of time as past, present, and future.

It’s late, so I will address this in clearer detail tomorrow night.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Actualy, might as well get a start on this tonight.

The time analogy is perhaps the worst one I’ve ever seen. (The best of the inadequate analogies is the picture or sculpture analogy, but those fail anyway because they depend on a point of view-not something you want to do in explaining God.)

Um…pro…I don’t know if you actually grasp this or not, but the “holy mongoose” has pretty much ripped that that old cobra to pieces. And right now the red ants are marching down the serpent’s den and getting ready to feast on it’s dead carcass.

pro_universal:

Ah, the stateliness and honor of time. Who could possibly read that and think “he’s really stretching it”

Yes. The stateliness and honor of time.

Aside from God, can you think of anything more all-encompassing and yet absolutely pervasive and nearly transcendent as time itself? This topic has been tackled by fairly well all the greatest philosphers for thousands of years.

No. I’m not stretching anything by making this analogy. It’s actually a perfect analogy-- and the subject matter is incredibly precise too by the way.

pro:

In other words, you’re applying labels to a process you don’t understand in order to find a way to call it a “trinity.”

But I do understand how time works in past, present and future tenses.

So do you.

Without it, we could not even conceive of something happening in a logical fashion in the first place.

What we don’t understand, however, is how time is indeed a physical and measureable quality of the universe, mechanically speaking, and exactly how this can all happen in such a paradoxical way that we do indeed experience every moment of the day.

pro:

This method of proving the trinity borders on numerology.

Yes. And you later equate it with borderline astrology.

So now your saying my explanation of the Trinity is something akin to something that the Catechism Catholic Church actually forbids in the very First Commandment?

pro:

It’s certainly an old method though-Augustine wrote a whole chapter on the wonders of the number six in The Trinity.

I’d be interested in reading that to be in honest, so a link to this chapter would be much appreciated.

In the meantime, please note that Saint Augustine also a wrote whole chapter in his Confessions on the nature and mystery of time too.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

pro:

If you are looking for a number to prove in nature, you can prove it with almost any example. That doesn’t actually mean anything though, except that you’re really trying hard to justify your preconceptions.

So why is that when we state what we believe it’s considered a preconception instead of a revelation, but when you state what you believe it’s considered a revelation instead of a preconception?

On a philosophical level, you already realize that the philosophy of time and space actually forms the basis of one of the rules for constructing valid syllogism, correct?

“Look, a fish: It has gills, eyes, and scales. Each is equal in the fucntion of the fish. Therefore, there is a trinity in the fish.”

No. Because the fish also has many other things which enable it to function as a fish beyond its gills, eyes, and scales.

And if it didn’t have these additional things, then it wouldn’t be a fish, correct?

With time all that is really necessary is the three basic points of reference: past, present, and future. Certainly all philosophical writings I’ve come across use these three chronological reference points as the basic framework for understanding all temporal functions.

In fact, this trinitarian set of functions can be traced philosophically back to the very basis of the syllogism. In other words, one of the rules for constructing valid syllogism is that it must contain exactly three terms.

And, unlike fish, the philosophy of space and time has been central to philosophy itself from its inception-- and this philosophy is in itself the inspiration for, and central to, early analytic philosophy as well.

pro:

The time analogy depends on you being the center of the analogy: past, present, and future depend on a you sitting here viewing them.

First of all, if this is true, then why do you say that the best of the inadequate analogies is the picture or sculpture analogy?

You’re refering to three-dimensional geometry when you refer to the picture or sculpture, are you not?

If so, then you also realize that time if simply an expansion of three-geometry from the reference point of a fourth dimension, correct?

Why is the three-dimensional geometry the best whereas the four-dimensional geometry considered the worst?

It would seem to me logical that the higher dimensions would actualy bring us closer to God’s perspective on the matter.

Furthermore, they don’t fail because they depend on a human point of view. If we want something that adequately explains a Trinitarian God, then we have to tackle this from his Trinitarian point-of-view, do we not?

Besides that, the time analogy does not necessarilly depend on us being the center of the analogy. This is simply not true according to the philosophy of space and time.

I’ve already provided many links which suggest otherwise. So if you have something that refutes 2,500 years of philosophical thought on this matter, something beside your own personal opinion on the matter, I’d be interested in reading it.

Since both science and philosophy seems to claim otherwise, I have to say, at this point in time, your casual objections don’t really cut it to be honest.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

pro:

And we could just as easily make it “distant past, recent past, immediate present, passing present, near future, and distant future” and then conclude that there’s actually a holy sextuplet mirrored in the nature of time.

Um…no we can’t…because I never interjected the terms of distant past, recent past, immediate present, passing present, near future, and distant future.

You did.

As you already said, this is so…

pro:

…Because there’s no negation of any of terms I’ve used. If you can’t provide a negation that comes from one of my terms of another of my terms, you have no contradiction. Not just because I don’t think so, but because it is impossible that you even theoretically could have one without this…

…right?

You also said…

pro:

This is a terrible argument. You are making up your own ideas of the concept, and then claiming that they somehow matter to mine.

You can certainly create a logically incoherent argument if you want, but the things you say are irrelevant to what’s contained in my statements.

…remember?

First of all, are you not making up your own ideas of the concept, and then claiming that they somehow matter to mine?

Second of all, if you create a logically incoherent argument from my statements, are the things you say relevant to what’s contained in my statements?

pro:

The best analogies to the trinity are inaccurate. The really bad ones are borderline astrology.

But if that’s so, then the syllogism itself – the very trinitarian basis upon which logic rests – amounts to nothing more than numerology and borderline astrology.

One of the most basic rules about the proper construction of a syllogism is that it must contain exactly three terms.

Consequently, when someone uses logic to prove God doesn’t exist, they actually really are engaging in a form of idolatry.

And I don’t think this is very different from you using logic to prove that God isn’t a Trinity.

 

[kellie]

“Belief” is an abstract concept that can’t be forced upon someone through the anatomy of fish or philosophys of time and space.

Pro has been a Catholic, has had doubt, has done research, and has found Islam to be more to his liking and understanding.

I seriously fail to see how anyone is going to “make him believe” again in Jesus through all this discussion.

All we can do is pray for him

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

But let’s actually get to your own statements here.

You said the following…

pro:

It is quite simple in principle. If you have a term A, and your premises also contain not A, then you have a contradiction.

Let me give you an example, extremely simplified:

1. God is immortal.
2. If God can die, then God is not immortal.
3. God can die.

I’ll symbolize that as:

1. God is immortal= I
2. If God can die, then God is not immortal= D-> ~I
3. God can die= D

By means of modus ponens and 3. and 2., we can conclude:

~I.

So how about the following contradictions using your own terms?

God is all powerful.
If God is immaterial, then God is not all powerful.
God is immaterial

God is all powerful.
If God is merciful, then God is not all powerful.
God is merciful.

God is all powerful.
If God is good, then God is not all powerful.
God is good.

I’ve already addressed some of these negations before when you claimed that God could be all-powerful (with all-powerful meaning having the power to do any thing) and yet still not be able to sin.

The same exact things apply with these negations I’ve pointed out above. In other words, for example, if you’re claming that that God not being able to do some thing actually means that God can do any thing, I have to conclude that you have contradicted youself.

Seems that way to me.

 

[pro_universal]

Okay, where do we start…

Really? No trinities in the philosophy of time nor in the scientific theories of time either?

Really, none. The only trinity in your articles is in the “Trinity.edu” web address. The theories about time are certainly complicated and deep; the problem is that no one sees a “trinity” in the philosophy of time except for people who want to see one. And a short read of your articles will show that.

In addition, theories of time are just that: theories. They will certainly change, like all other scientific theories, and they depend on perspective, something that claims about the nature of God should not do.

For Augustine, then, as the Scholastics were to say later, time is a being of reason with a foundation in things which through becoming offer to the mind the concept of time as past, present, and future

Augustine also wrote books about the magical number six. His analogies by his own admission failed to capture the essence of trinitarian teaching.

What we don’t understand, however, is how time is indeed a physical and measureable quality of the universe, mechanically speaking, and exactly how this can all happen in such a paradoxical way that we do indeed experience every moment of the day.

I have no idea how this is analogous to the trinity except to say that they’re both things we don’t understand.

On a philosophical level, you already realize that the philosophy of time and space actually forms the basis of one of the rules for constructing valid syllogism, correct?

Uh, no. Mathematical rules of inference are what make something logical or not.

Here’s an analogy for you about the syllogism:

the syllogism is to logic what phrenology is to psychiatry.

But if that’s so, then the syllogism itself – the very trinitarian basis upon which logic rests – amounts to nothing more than numerology and borderline astrology.

Logic does not rest on the syllogism. The syllogism is an antiquated tool of comparatively little use compared to modern symbolic logic.

The rest of your claims are, as I said, borderline numerology. If you’re looking, you can find any number in anything (think of the bible code, for example.) That doesn’t mean it makes any sense or is anything other than arbitrary to do so.

I’ve already addressed some of these negations before when you claimed that God could be all-powerful (with all-powerful meaning having the power to do any thing) and yet still not be able to sin.

Your syllogisms include premises that aren’t required by my definitions. My example of God dying was just that: an example. I wasn’t adding anything to your claims, and it was a very simple example that would be easy for someone with no training in formal logic to grasp.

I’d like to see that promised representation of my statements with demonstrated negations now, if you do not mind.

 

[inJESUS]

Um…no we can’t…because I never interjected the terms of distant past, recent past, immediate present, passing present, near future, and distant future.

You did.

As you already said, this is so…

…right?

You also said…

…remember?

First of all, are you not making up your own ideas of the concept, and then claiming that they somehow matter to mine?

Second of all, if you create a logically incoherent argument from my statements, are the things you say relevant to what’s contained in my statements?

But if that’s so, then the syllogism itself – the very trinitarian basis upon which logic rests – amounts to nothing more than numerology and borderline astrology.

One of the most basic rules about the proper construction of a syllogism is that it must contain exactly three terms.

Consequently, when someone uses logic to prove God doesn’t exist, they actually really are engaging in a form of idolatry.

And I don’t think this is very different from you using logic to prove that God isn’t a Trinity.

 

[Image_of_God]

Okay, where do we start…

Really, none. The only trinity in your articles is in the “Trinity.edu” web address. The theories about time are certainly complicated and deep; the problem is that no one sees a “trinity” in the philosophy of time except for people who want to see one. And a short read of your articles will show that.

In addition, theories of time are just that: theories. They will certainly change, like all other scientific theories, and they depend on perspective, something that claims about the nature of God should not do.

Augustine also wrote books about the magical number six. His analogies by his own admission failed to capture the essence of trinitarian teaching.

I have no idea how this is analogous to the trinity except to say that they’re both things we don’t understand.

Uh, no. Mathematical rules of inference are what make something logical or not.

Here’s an analogy for you about the syllogism:

the syllogism is to logic what phrenology is to psychiatry.

Logic does not rest on the syllogism. The syllogism is an antiquated tool of comparatively little use compared to modern symbolic logic.

The rest of your claims are, as I said, borderline numerology. If you’re looking, you can find any number in anything (think of the bible code, for example.) That doesn’t mean it makes any sense or is anything other than arbitrary to do so.

Your syllogisms include premises that aren’t required by my definitions. My example of God dying was just that: an example. I wasn’t adding anything to your claims, and it was a very simple example that would be easy for someone with no training in formal logic to grasp.

I’d like to see that promised representation of my statements with demonstrated negations now, if you do not mind.

I will not attempt to define the Trinity. It takes supernatural faith and that is something you have not yet realized. You are still trying to fit the Trinity into a finite human mind, and it will not work until you let go and trust Jesus. You are trying so hard to put something that is not natural into your mind.
You should certainly read St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. The Trinity cannot be defined to the complete knowledge you are looking for with pure human reason. And this is helpful and true, for it shows that we do not know God as we should and it shows our humble nature. You seek to understand the Trinity in a natural and scientific way, but it will not work. This complete understanding of the Trinity was loosed after the Fall, but will certainly return in Heaven. We have to trust. This is something that God really deserves.

Here are some stories on people who trusted even though it was hard. These people are Saints because they did not rely on human understanding but on faith in Trinity:
newadvent.org/cathen/17721a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/11763a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/03477c.htm

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

“Belief” is an abstract concept that can’t be forced upon someone through the anatomy of fish or philosophys of time and space.

Pro has been a Catholic, has had doubt, has done research, and has found Islam to be more to his liking and understanding.

I seriously fail to see how anyone is going to “make him believe” again in Jesus through all this discussion.

All we can do is pray for him

Yes. And we can pray for him through our actions too.

We need to let the word of Christ dwell in us richly as we teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as we sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in our hearts to God.

Whatever we do, whether in word or deed, we do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. And we pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.

With this in mind, we need to be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

And if pro_universal is not yet a Muslim, and if he was baptized and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then he is still a saint in my book and hope remains.

Consequently, we’re not trying to make him believe in Jesus again. Not directly anyway.

We’re trying to make him understand the distinction between revelation and reason, and the the limits of human logic when discerning these things of faith.

His view seems unbalanced in favor of reason over revelation in my opinion.

In fact, it seems as though pro has often considered his own human reason as being akin to a divine revelation that is logically valid even as he’s claimed the Christian revelation seems actually more akin to a human construct which is logically invalid.

I’m sorry. No. Regardless of the reasons, I’m not sitting back and allowing anyone to make these claims unchallenged. Allowing a claim like this to go unchallenged is the real blasphemy and a slap in the face of God.

My apologies. I prayed very hard about what others in this thread asked of me. But I don’t believe the Lord is asking us to sit down and complacently let this be determined through non-active prayer alone.

We can pray for others through our actions toward them too. And that’s what I’m doing right now.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Okay, where do we start…

Back to the beginning again apparently.

le sigh

pro:

Really, none.

That’s simply false. The entire concept of the philosophy of time rests on the initial premises of past, present and future perspectives. Without this distinction, there would be no concept of time.

pro:

The only trinity in your articles is in the “Trinity.edu” web address.

I think you’re being too literal here.

I didn’t say they called it a ‘trinity’. You apparently are.

I said the entire basis of our comprehension of time, the philosophy of space and time itself, rests upon the trinitarian distinction of past, present, and future perspectives-- and the link from “Trinity.edu” displays just one of the trinitiarian formulae involved.

pro:

The theories about time are certainly complicated and deep…

I’ve kind of addressed this already here.

By the way, saying that the theories about time are certainly complicated and deep seems to be a sharp reversal of your previous statement that I was “stretching it” when I talked about the stateliness and honor of time.

Don’t worry. I’m not expecting you to admit you were actually wrong when you made this claim. As far as I can tell, you’ve never once admitted you were wrong about…um…any thing.

You are, after all, saying that God can do any thing except sin because anything God does is good-- and then you make the claim that God can still do any thing even though you admit there are things that God, by his very nature, cannot do.

So, first of all, you are saying that God can do any thing.

Second of all, you are saying that God cannot sin by claming that whatever God does is good.

And then, thirdly, you are saying that, since whatever God does is good, this somehow proves that God not being able to do some thing actually means that God can do any thing.

You can’t get much more contradictory than that.

I’m sorry but this a gross violation of the logical process which God himself gave us in order to understand his revelations more clearly.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

pro:

the problem is that no one sees a “trinity” in the philosophy of time except for people who want to see one.

No. The problem is that no one who works on this subject, whether in philosophy or in science, does not tackle this subject from past, present, and future perspectives. All forumlae involved reflect this. In fact, there are no other perspectives we can actually work from.

pro:

And a short read of your articles will show that.

Actually, a short read of those articles indicates that they all work from the perspectives of past, present and future in regards to all the theories regarding time. The entire concept of the philosophy of time rests on the initial premises of past, present and future perspectives. Without this distinction, there would be no concept of time.

pro:

In addition, theories of time are just that: theories.

And yet time is experienced in the trinitarian formula of past, present, and future-- and this is not a theory. That time is experienced in past, present, and future perspectives is not merely a theory. That time is experienced in past, present, and future perspectives is truly a fact.

pro:

They will certainly change, like all other scientific theories, and they depend on perspective, something that claims about the nature of God should not do.

Then why are you claming things about God?

Do your claims about the nature of God not depend on your own perspective of him?

And how are your claims about the nature of God any different from all other scientific theories?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

pro:

Augustine also wrote books about the magical number six. His analogies by his own admission failed to capture the essence of trinitarian teaching.

Yes. I’ve heard this before. Thank you.

As I said before, I’d be thankful if you could provide a link on this. I’d like to read it further.

As I said before, in the meantime, please note that Saint Augustine also a wrote whole chapter in his Confessions on the nature and mystery of time too.
Mr. Ex:

What we don’t understand, however, is how time is indeed a physical and measureable quality of the universe, mechanically speaking, and exactly how this can all happen in such a paradoxical way that we do indeed experience every moment of the day.

pro:

I have no idea how this is analogous to the trinity except to say that they’re both things we don’t understand.

It’s a fairly simple analogy.

I’m saying that we know that the time continuum works within the framework of past, present and future perspectives regardless of the fact that we don’t understand how the mechanics of the time continuum works on purely physical level.

In other words, our inability to understand the physical mechanics of how a process works in no way invalidates the fact something works the way it reveals itself to work.

I covered this before here by the way.

Consequently, our inability to understand the physical mechanics of how the Trinity works in no way invalidates the fact that our Triune God works the way he reveals himself to work-- as a Trinity.

Furthermore, as I said before, the analogy doesn’t fail because its depends on a human point of view. In fact, if we want something that adequately explains a Trinitarian God, then we have to tackle this from a perspective that goes **beyond a human perspective **and adequately captures his Trinitarian point-of-view.

Can you think of anything more transcedent over humanity than the nature of time itself?

The analogy of time past, time present, and time future captures God’s trinitarian view extremely well in this regard

But you said before…

pro:

The time analogy depends on you being the center of the analogy: past, present, and future depend on a you sitting here viewing them.

…but if this is true, then why do you say that the best of the inadequate analogies is the picture or sculpture analogy?

You’re refering to three-dimensional geometry when you refer to the picture or sculpture, are you not?

If so, then you also realize that time is simply an expansion of three-dimensional geometry from the reference point of a fourth dimension, correct?

If so, then why is the three-dimensional geometric perspective considered the best whereas the four-dimensional geometric perspective considered the worst?

Sounds like another contradiciton to me.

In fact, it would seem to me more logical that the higher dimensions would actually bring us closer to God’s perspective on this matter. So I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on why your statements that 3-D perspectives are superior to 4-D perspectives are not contradictory claims to be honest.