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

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

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

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

The Impossibility Of The Doxastic Vacuum:

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

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

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

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

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

Brief Digression:

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

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

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

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

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

End Brief Digression.

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

“But Babies & Neonates Are Atheists”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin Excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing To Unpack The Impossible Doxastic Vacuum

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

Begin Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

Recall that you are denying the second half of this:

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

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

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

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

End Excerpt.

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

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

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

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

Skepticism Of Skepticism

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

And again from another lens:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: “Really? How can that be?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proverbial Quad of belief:

Irrational Belief & Irrational Disbelief

Rational Belief & Rational Disbelief

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

Going even further downstream:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tangentially Related Segues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before Closing — A Few Key Observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpt 1 of 5:

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

2 of 5:

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

3 of 5:

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

4 of 5:

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

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

5 of 5:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equates Privation to Wholeness, just as it

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

Equates the Privation of The Good for the The Good.

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

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

Lastly – Regarding Reciprocity, Being, and Closure

MAPPING RECIPROCITY:

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

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

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

MAPPING BEING:

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

[A] is not [B]

[B] is not [C]

[C] is not [A]

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

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

— End —

Share on Facebook

Save

Spread the love