austinbrown2
Puritan Board Freshman
Hello to Paul and to all those interested,
We haven’t talked before, but I have been lurking about. I have appreciated the extended conversations you have been a part of and they have helped me think through certain issues from different angles.
I’d like to comment on your “coming out of the closet.” First, let me say that I share your concerns about TAG. And I would add that the emotional, as well as intellectual, struggle behind such reflections can be exhausting (As I’m sure you would agree). So I don’t come to you with a dagger, but simply as one who is ever trying to understand these issues more faithfully.
Allow me to quote you from the Triablogue, “The only threat: thought experiments and made up worldviews which are basically the same as mine.” [Let’s just call this the Great Pumpkin…remember Charlie Brown?].
In this vein, you have raised a host of questions about a quadra-god to illustrate an arbitrary element to TAG. How is it that such things can be knocked down by a Christian TAG? The ability to reductio seems to stand at an impasse, especially if each worldview has justified mystery elements to counter some unknowns or unexplainables. I continue to wrestle with this. It seems difficult to decisively beat this. Nevertheless, I have a few thoughts. I’d be interested in any comments from you or anyone else.
I think we have to keep a keen eye on where our feet are planted (Hear me out) . Do they stand on the Christian plantation, or do we have one foot firmly placed in the land of autonomy. The significance to this isn’t to point out once again the apparent impasse that arises from TAG wars, but the nature of probability and our knowledge. When we raise thought experiments or toy around with Great Pumpkins I perceive that we are meddling with “What if’s.” Here we have invoked a greater issue than simply the Great Pumpkin itself. We have, idealistically, stepped out into the realm of possibility, which is intimately connected with autonomy. This has dire implications for us with respect to all things, not simply the Great Pumpkin under consideration. The issue becomes, not simply, COULD the Great Pumpkin be true, but COULD X1, X2, X3, ad infinitum, be true? Could we be a brain in a vat that is being stimulated to think this way? Could we be in a sophisticated video game? A Matrix? Could there be multi-verses that have different physics and/or logics? Could there be a quadra-god? A god who is really evil and is simply tricking us with the façade of goodness? Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely.
As soon as we humans step off of the Christian plantation possibility rises to ascendancy and it becomes ultimate. If possibility is ultimate to us, then chance is ultimate. And those things will reduce human knowledge to probability wars that cannot be resolved. For at any point we think we know X, then there is also possible defeater Y out there or knowledge P that might overturn X. We don’t know everything, so it follows that every X is also facing potential wrongness that cannot be calculated because we don’t know the parameters with which to even calculate the relative rightness or wrongness or probability to the truth claim. I think of this as the probability problem, or the “What if?” problem.
So when we invoke questions about the Great Pumpkin we are putting one of our feet in the sphere of autonomy, which is a bottomless pit. In that realm there is no hope for getting a foothold. Every finite point requires an infinite point of reference to know anything… or do I know that to be true?
“But how do I know that the Great Pumpkin isn’t that infinite point?’ You ask. But notice again what kind of question this is. If I seek to answer this question with possibility as ultimate, then I can’t answer it. I can’t answer anything without being aware of its equally ultimate potential failure.
“Ok, so how do you get to the Triune God?”
The Lord is ultimate, there is no chance. Possibility will not rise to ascendancy if and only if I stand on His sure footing. I will become lost in the “What if” problem if I don’t root my mind in His revelation and the implications of that revelation. He is ultimate, so I cannot appeal to anything outside of that ultimacy to ground that ultimacy.
“But in light of the Great Pumpkin you are begging the question. Why can’t I say that the Great Pumpkin is ultimate and in him all this chance goes away?”
Well, you can say that, and God's world does allow for this kind of thinking. But again, by so exercising our minds in this fashion you have stepped out into the realm of possibility. What are you standing on to posit such questions? The question springs from a foundation of “What if.” You could assert that you stand on the ground of the Great Pumpkin, but you really aren’t. You are a Christian, Paul, who is engaging in thought experiments and “What if’s.” By so doing you have one foot outside of the Christian plantation, so as to entertain speculations about ultimate truth. By so doing we loose our footing and get real confused real fast because possibility and our finiteness bite us in the butts- and this leads to frustration. In heaven, our minds will be so fixed and rooted in the truth that both feet will be securely fixed in that truth. Otherwise, think about it, the “what if” problem could just as well plague us there. Maybe heaven is all an illusion. Maybe the Great Pumpkin will burst on the scene and change heaven itself?!? X1, X2, X3, etc. The only way to avoid this now is to be so heavenly minded, by faith, that both feet are firmly planted on that which can deal with the possibility problem.
Naturally, the onlooker will think the Christian is engaging in the biggest question beg of all time. But as presupp’s well know every worldview does this. The question of circularity and ultimacy pervade all of reality precisely because we do live in Jesus’ universe. And we know that we can’t get to the true God unless He reveals Himself. Given the “What if” problem, revelation is necessary. And given our finiteness which will lead to the “What if” problem, we must have a sensus divinitas. How else might people be held accountable when they couldn’t know for sure? And given our sin, God must effectually draw people to Himself. That is how we come to embrace Christianity. That is how we arrive at the Triune God. God must grant revelation and faith (see footnte 1). It is the world we presently live in and is our current state of affairs. To ask how we know this is going to require these answers on some level. It begs the question big time, but if Christianity is true, then it must beg the question in the ultimate sense. The irony is that people who question this do so from the “What if” plantation and I felt the thorns of that ground in my feet.
Austin
Footnote 1: If we ask whether or not the Great Pumpkin might grant faith and revelation to only one person and we are left out, then I have to recognize what I am doing here. I am asking a "What if" question. How do I determine the answer to a "What if" question? Either I do it in accordance with the Christian worldview or I don't. If not according to the Christian worldview I'm at a loss to know how to know anything. The possibility of Great Pumpkin is equally as likely as, say, Matrix and is equally as unlikely as Matrix. How do we quantify Likelihood in these instances? It's impossible... or maybe it's not (who knows). There appears to be a pragmatically equal likelihood and unlikelihood of X1 and X2.
If I answer it according to my Christian convictions then I resound that the Lord God is the only true God. And if I want to seek to demonstrate that this is true, well, I might just talk about the "what if" problem...
At the end of the day I must stand on the Rock, for other ground is sinking sand.
We haven’t talked before, but I have been lurking about. I have appreciated the extended conversations you have been a part of and they have helped me think through certain issues from different angles.
I’d like to comment on your “coming out of the closet.” First, let me say that I share your concerns about TAG. And I would add that the emotional, as well as intellectual, struggle behind such reflections can be exhausting (As I’m sure you would agree). So I don’t come to you with a dagger, but simply as one who is ever trying to understand these issues more faithfully.
Allow me to quote you from the Triablogue, “The only threat: thought experiments and made up worldviews which are basically the same as mine.” [Let’s just call this the Great Pumpkin…remember Charlie Brown?].
In this vein, you have raised a host of questions about a quadra-god to illustrate an arbitrary element to TAG. How is it that such things can be knocked down by a Christian TAG? The ability to reductio seems to stand at an impasse, especially if each worldview has justified mystery elements to counter some unknowns or unexplainables. I continue to wrestle with this. It seems difficult to decisively beat this. Nevertheless, I have a few thoughts. I’d be interested in any comments from you or anyone else.
I think we have to keep a keen eye on where our feet are planted (Hear me out) . Do they stand on the Christian plantation, or do we have one foot firmly placed in the land of autonomy. The significance to this isn’t to point out once again the apparent impasse that arises from TAG wars, but the nature of probability and our knowledge. When we raise thought experiments or toy around with Great Pumpkins I perceive that we are meddling with “What if’s.” Here we have invoked a greater issue than simply the Great Pumpkin itself. We have, idealistically, stepped out into the realm of possibility, which is intimately connected with autonomy. This has dire implications for us with respect to all things, not simply the Great Pumpkin under consideration. The issue becomes, not simply, COULD the Great Pumpkin be true, but COULD X1, X2, X3, ad infinitum, be true? Could we be a brain in a vat that is being stimulated to think this way? Could we be in a sophisticated video game? A Matrix? Could there be multi-verses that have different physics and/or logics? Could there be a quadra-god? A god who is really evil and is simply tricking us with the façade of goodness? Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely.
As soon as we humans step off of the Christian plantation possibility rises to ascendancy and it becomes ultimate. If possibility is ultimate to us, then chance is ultimate. And those things will reduce human knowledge to probability wars that cannot be resolved. For at any point we think we know X, then there is also possible defeater Y out there or knowledge P that might overturn X. We don’t know everything, so it follows that every X is also facing potential wrongness that cannot be calculated because we don’t know the parameters with which to even calculate the relative rightness or wrongness or probability to the truth claim. I think of this as the probability problem, or the “What if?” problem.
So when we invoke questions about the Great Pumpkin we are putting one of our feet in the sphere of autonomy, which is a bottomless pit. In that realm there is no hope for getting a foothold. Every finite point requires an infinite point of reference to know anything… or do I know that to be true?
“But how do I know that the Great Pumpkin isn’t that infinite point?’ You ask. But notice again what kind of question this is. If I seek to answer this question with possibility as ultimate, then I can’t answer it. I can’t answer anything without being aware of its equally ultimate potential failure.
“Ok, so how do you get to the Triune God?”
The Lord is ultimate, there is no chance. Possibility will not rise to ascendancy if and only if I stand on His sure footing. I will become lost in the “What if” problem if I don’t root my mind in His revelation and the implications of that revelation. He is ultimate, so I cannot appeal to anything outside of that ultimacy to ground that ultimacy.
“But in light of the Great Pumpkin you are begging the question. Why can’t I say that the Great Pumpkin is ultimate and in him all this chance goes away?”
Well, you can say that, and God's world does allow for this kind of thinking. But again, by so exercising our minds in this fashion you have stepped out into the realm of possibility. What are you standing on to posit such questions? The question springs from a foundation of “What if.” You could assert that you stand on the ground of the Great Pumpkin, but you really aren’t. You are a Christian, Paul, who is engaging in thought experiments and “What if’s.” By so doing you have one foot outside of the Christian plantation, so as to entertain speculations about ultimate truth. By so doing we loose our footing and get real confused real fast because possibility and our finiteness bite us in the butts- and this leads to frustration. In heaven, our minds will be so fixed and rooted in the truth that both feet will be securely fixed in that truth. Otherwise, think about it, the “what if” problem could just as well plague us there. Maybe heaven is all an illusion. Maybe the Great Pumpkin will burst on the scene and change heaven itself?!? X1, X2, X3, etc. The only way to avoid this now is to be so heavenly minded, by faith, that both feet are firmly planted on that which can deal with the possibility problem.
Naturally, the onlooker will think the Christian is engaging in the biggest question beg of all time. But as presupp’s well know every worldview does this. The question of circularity and ultimacy pervade all of reality precisely because we do live in Jesus’ universe. And we know that we can’t get to the true God unless He reveals Himself. Given the “What if” problem, revelation is necessary. And given our finiteness which will lead to the “What if” problem, we must have a sensus divinitas. How else might people be held accountable when they couldn’t know for sure? And given our sin, God must effectually draw people to Himself. That is how we come to embrace Christianity. That is how we arrive at the Triune God. God must grant revelation and faith (see footnte 1). It is the world we presently live in and is our current state of affairs. To ask how we know this is going to require these answers on some level. It begs the question big time, but if Christianity is true, then it must beg the question in the ultimate sense. The irony is that people who question this do so from the “What if” plantation and I felt the thorns of that ground in my feet.
Austin
Footnote 1: If we ask whether or not the Great Pumpkin might grant faith and revelation to only one person and we are left out, then I have to recognize what I am doing here. I am asking a "What if" question. How do I determine the answer to a "What if" question? Either I do it in accordance with the Christian worldview or I don't. If not according to the Christian worldview I'm at a loss to know how to know anything. The possibility of Great Pumpkin is equally as likely as, say, Matrix and is equally as unlikely as Matrix. How do we quantify Likelihood in these instances? It's impossible... or maybe it's not (who knows). There appears to be a pragmatically equal likelihood and unlikelihood of X1 and X2.
If I answer it according to my Christian convictions then I resound that the Lord God is the only true God. And if I want to seek to demonstrate that this is true, well, I might just talk about the "what if" problem...
At the end of the day I must stand on the Rock, for other ground is sinking sand.