Tag Archives: Determinism

(Part 3: Quick and Easy Criticism of UPB) The Multitudinous Problems with Secular Ethics: A critique of Universally Preferable Behavior

Determinism, Epistemology, Ethics, forced compliance, General Philosophy, individualism vs collectivism, Metaphysics, , ,

 

UPB begs the question: Why should preferable behavior be preferable? Or, said another way: Why is preferable behavior good? If we say: UPB is good because it’s UPB, then we have a circular reasoning (tautology), which is a logical fallacy. If we say that UPB is good because it’s good for individuals, then the individual, not UPB, is the ethical standard. In this case “universality” is an irrelevant ethical concept. Since individuals are individual, collectivizing their actions (demanding or even suggesting universal compliance) contradicts their existence. Which implies that the individual is not actually the ethical standard. Pursuing UPB then demands the collectivization of humanity, and once this happens, “preference” goes out the window. Since preference is a parameter of consciousness, and consciousness is and can only be singular (a function of the Individual qua the Individual), it has nothing whatsoever to do with Universally Preferable Behavior.

Trust NO philosophy from anyone which implies the collectivization of humanity. No matter how warm and fuzzy and peaceful it may sound, it’s all utterly evil. There is no rational apologetic for ethics which demand or imply universal compliance. They are all the spawn of hell. Period.

(Part Two: Why UPB Self-Nullifies) The Multitudinous Problems with Secular Ethics: A critique of Universally Preferable Behavior

Determinism, Epistemology, Ethics, General Philosophy, government, individualism vs collectivism, Metaphysics, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, scientific determinism, , , , ,

[I apologize in advance for the tedious and highly technical nature of the following article. Bear with me. There really isn’t an easy way to do this. Thanks.]

1. If UPB is simply a set of possible choices, but does NOT reference an absolute moral Standard which makes compliance with UPB not simply preferable, but necessary in order to avoid some kind of irreparable existential contradiction, which thus implies and necessitates some irreparable existential injury (however that is defined…if it even needs to be defined at all), then UPB cannot claim to be either universal nor preferable, since there is no fundamental existential difference between compliance and non-compliance. In which case, UPB self-nullifies.

2. If UPB IS considered an inexorable natural law–referencing itself as its own absolute moral Standard–to which the individual is obligated or face some form of irreparable existential injury (however that is defined…if it even needs to be defined at all) then UPB is not preferable, but necessary, and perfunctory, and it self-nullifies.

3. If UPB is a legal (as opposed to ethical or moral) Standard–that is, Law as defined by a legal Authority, like the State–then by definition the individual is legally obligated to comply, and non-compliance results in punishment which, though legal, is, for all practical purposes, existential in its effect, since the manifestation of the ownership of oneself–i.e. free will/choice–while under State sanction is impossible. And therefore, UPB is not preferable and therefore self-nullifies.

Now, to expand upon point number two; and the reason is because this argument is, as I observe, the primary argument utilized by apologists for secular ethics:

If UPB is considered merely a de facto parameter of (one’s) Existence–that is, the perfunctory behavior of (one’s) Existence which affirms that (one’s) Existence actually exists, then UPB is nullified. Meaning, if we use the argument that because we observe that species or the individuals of that species behave in ways which are consistent with survival and reproduction and then claim that this behavior is actually preferable…we’ve contradicted ourselves and shown that such behavior cannot possibly be preferable, let alone ethical, and is only universal in that it is simply a de facto function of Existence qua Existence. In other words, if we remove choice–moral agency–from ethics entirely, or make it purely a function of the laws of nature, then a choice is never actually chosen. However, removing choice contradict ethics as meaningful in any rational or practical way, because amoral ethics imply behavior which doesn’t make a distinction between good behavior or bad behavior. So…why would any given behavior be preferable? It wouldn’t.

Also, notice how in scientific terms, which are the secularist’s terms of epistemology, ALL action is merely “behavior”…”choice” as a vehicle is sophistically smuggled in later–a bromide meant for and used by the small minority of non-communist atheists as a nod to the non-aggression principle; but UPB pairs with the NAP like salad pairs with Guinness.

If we accept Existence as the Metaphysical Primary, and therefore objective (empirical) reality and natural law as its practical Ethical and Epistemological derivatives , then we must admit that one cannot act via his Existencee in a way which contradicts his Existence…so regardless of what one does, and therefore what one chooses, one must necessarily always be acting ethically. To claim that one can somehow violate the terms of his or someone else’s (absolute) Existence by Existence, itself, is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, if UPB is said to be an Ethic derived from Existence, it is impossible for one to violate it, since one cannot violate the very thing that makes all behavior–like the “violation” itself– ultimately possible.

On the other hand, if we were to place UPB outside of (one’s) Existence and then argue that, as an Ethic outside of Existence (which is its own giant fallacy, given that Existence is the Metaphysical Primary for all apologists for UPB, I think), failure to follow UPB somehow amounts to an Ethical, and therefore moral, violation, and therefore is evil, and therefore obliges men to “prefer” UPB,  then the individual–as a rank existant–could neither be the source nor the reference for UPB, which makes whatever the individual prefers, and thus ultimately chooses, entirely besides the point…since his choice and preference are a function of himself. This again, as I asserted above in point 3., relegates UPB to the status of a Legal Code–the Legal Law–which means that coercion by a legal Authority, not preference, is the only legitimate and rational means of fulfilling the Law.

Now, if we claim that (one’s) existence is not in fact absolute, but somehow transient–an effect and not a cause, as it were, or a function of some Absolute Cause outside of (one’s) existence, then we would have no logical reason to conclude that behavior which promotes one’s existence is preferable to behavior which does not. For (one’s) existence, being non-absolute, is no more valid a state of nature than is his non-existence. Non-existence, because existence is not absolute, does not violate the Absolute Cause (that of which (one’s) existence AND non-existence is a direct effect), and therefore it can be no more rationally nor morally preferable to behave in ways that promote existence–of either oneself or others–than to behave in ways that do not. And therefore by what basis can we argue that UPB is actually preferable at all? No basis.

Interestingly, I have noticed that those who promote Existence as the Metaphysical Primarily DO, irrationally, make the distinction between Existence, the Primary, and one’s individual existence–because they understand that individual existence necessarily incorporates consciousness, and therefore they reject it as having anything to do with Existence qua Existence, because consciousness they assert is not objective, because it’s not empirical. But you see as soon as one makes the distinction between conscious existence (consciousness) and Existence the Primary, then whatever the individual consciously prefers--and all preference is conscious by definition–is beside the point. When you reject consciousness as fundamental to Existence you necessarily reject choice. Which means that you reject choice as fundamentally meaningful, which not only wrecks UPB but wrecks morality entirely, and makes any discussion of Ethics pointless.  I submit, however, that if we oblige consciousness to rational consistency, which is entirely logical (and a separate article), then reason alone serves as a perfect and categorical guide to Ethical behavior, because it makes Truth actually and objectively possible.

Part three very soon.

Why Authority (Violence as the Primary Means of Achieving Objectives) is a Direct Function of Determinism

Ethics, General Philosophy, Metaphysics, Physics and Metaphysics, , ,

The primary ethic and politic of determinism is authoritarianism. That is, once individual Will becomes merely an inexorable effect of a Singularity of Cause which decides all purpose, be it God, or Natural Law/Scientific Empiricism, Existence (what “is” as its own end, where “Existence” must necessarily subordinate all other definitions of all objects, rendering their distinctions moot), or Social/Cultural Construction, or any other garden variety ideal like the Common Good, the Underprivileged, etcetera etcetera, then man cannot by definition act purposefully, on his own, to any relevant, rational, or moral objective, regardless of how this objective may be defined. Thus, all knowledge and purpose can only be ascribed to some kind of transcendent (and rationally impossible) revelation according to those who proclaim themselves the ecclesiastical (ruling according to “spiritual” mandate) recipients of the “Wisdom” or “Truth” of the Great Cause (the Singularity of Cause).  Examples of this can be found in religious leaders who claim divine rulership according to “God’s Calling”, the Representatives of States who claim to act on behalf of the “People” or the “Common Good”, or Intellectual elites who claim natural insight or acumen with respect to the “language of the Universe”, where the universe speaks in the arcane vernacular of mathematics, statistical analysis, genetic and evolutionary processes, various research methodologies, etcetera, etcetera. In all of these cases, Truth, and thus necessarily all that Is, is a function of an abstract ideal which causes absolutely, and therefore categorically determines all that man does, and thus, by definition, all that man thinks. Man then can only be compelled and controlled by force (violence), since he possesses no real capacity for self-awareness and therefore no capacity for self-control. He cannot think, therefore he cannot choose. And therefore he must be ruled–and absolutely so, by those who DO think, and DO know: those, again, who are the self-proclaimed extensions of the Determining (Singularity of) Cause. In other words, they rule you, because they are, as far as you are concerned,  indistinguishable from that which determines you.

Why is Causality (Cause and Effect) Not Determinative? Because It’s Not Real: The purely conceptual nature of “cause and effect”

General Philosophy, , , , ,

With respect to the determinative power of causality, I submit that there is none.  In support of this assertion I have developed the following explication, which reveals the nullifying contradiction of “cause and effect” when it is extracted from its purely conceptual  context:

There can be no cause qua cause until after  the effect is manifest. For what is a cause without an effect? It is certainly not a cause. For if a cause has not actually caused anything, then it is not a cause by definition.  In this way, then, anything which we would qualify as cause is categorically dependent for its rational and efficacious definition as a “cause” upon the effect.

Furthermore, we must also assert that there is no effect then which can exist except utterly independent of the cause. For unless the effect exists independently of the cause, it must be considered a direct and absolute function of the cause.  But if it is a direct and absolute function of the cause, then the distinction is eliminated, which then obliterates the very root essence of “cause and effect” in the first place, relegating it to irrelevance, and thus nonexistence…for that which is existentially irrelevant contradicts itself right out of existence.

Speaking of contradiction, note the following:

By the previous logic, cause and effect, being entirely distinct from one another, must therefore have entirely autonomous, separate existence already, prior to the confluence which is defined as “cause and effect” qua “cause and effect”.  In other words, there can be no effect unless the effect is an effect alone, absent any cause, before any cause manifests itself as a cause. Which then makes, by logical extension, the cause only a cause if it itself exists as such autonomously, absent the effect, before any effect manifests itself as an effect. In other words, each one must exist already as a prerequisite for “cause and effect” to  meet any sort of rationally consistent criteria in order to be defined as such: the effect is an effect prior to the cause causing it; and the cause is a cause prior to it actually having caused anything.

The cause needs the effect to be defined as the cause; and the effect needs the cause to be defined as an effect. But the effect cannot be a direct function of the cause without eliminating the distinction; and the cause cannot be given its absolute meaning and relevancy by the effect without likewise eliminating the distinction. But if the effect exists as the effect utterly independent of the cause, and the cause exists as the cause utterly independent of the effect, then what we assert is that an effect doesn’t actually require a cause to be an effect, and a cause doesn’t actually require an effect to be a cause.  Which…destroys the definitions of both, nullifying their “autonomous”, “independent” existence.

The point is that no matter from which angle approach it, you inevitably run into an impenetrable wall of contradiction.

And so it goes when we attempt to incorporate mutually exclusive conceptual abstractions into the non-abstract material universe of actual objects by assuming and imagining that they are likewise, themselves, in possession of a material, actual essence.

The solution to reconciling the contradictions now becomes apparent. We must not consider cause and effect an actual, catalyzing causal force…like we spuriously do with the laws of physics when we describe them as “governing”.  We must recognize cause and effect for what it really is: a concept human beings use to describe the relative movement of objects in the environment, objects which are fundamentally neither caused nor effected but are rooted in the infinity of their own absolute and infinitely singular material essence, in whatever form it happens to be observed, and as a function of whatever relative context in which it happens to be observed.

Indeed–and in conclusion–the presence of relativity in object interactions precludes any actual  (materially “existent”, for lack of a better term) cause and effect; yet it necessitates a conceptual cause and effect that the self-aware agent engages as a means to define and identify both what an object is, and how it is observed (i.e. its position relative to the observer at any given moment).

You Cannot Claim BY Your Existence That You Do Not Exist: The false ideological paradox of human free will and choice, and the implicit determinism of physical or natural law

General Philosophy, , , ,

1.

[Please note that in this essay I will use the phrases “laws of physics”, “physical law”, and “natural law” interchangeably.]

“Since there is no distinction between man and the laws of physics, it is impossible that man should know and assert that he is determined by them, these laws.”

-Me

This is an axiom I have made countless times before, and yet it doesn’t seem to get much traction. Perhaps it’s difficult to wrap one’s head around the claim without a substantial amount of rumination, and experience with the underlying arguments. This is understandable, since the assertion runs ostensibly paradoxical to an ontology and frankly dubious scientific philosophies that are taken by the vast majority of people as given. But what is also difficult, and more like impossible, is its refutation. And this makes sense, of course, for you cannot refute–at least objectively (which is to say reasonably)–an axiomatic truth. A truth perfect in its rational consistency, and irreducible in its conclusions, which have been derived from a comprehensive and carefully reasoned examination of the premises it answers.

I do understand that the axiom I aver is not necessarily intuitive given the heavy influence of Platonist thinking in western culture, but nevertheless it is perfectly consistent to state the following:

If a man is absolutely determined to think what he thinks and believe what he believes and say what he says, then it must be because he is absolutely determined to BE what he is.

And if man is absolutely determined to be what he is, then there really isn’t any distinction between man’s Self and the determining force, ITSELF. For that which is absolutely determined must be an absolute function of that which determines it. In which case, there is no real or relevant distinction between the two. If man is absolutely determined by the laws of physics then man cannot know he is absolutely determined because there is no man which independently exists in the first place. There is no one to KNOW anything.

Nevertheless, it is often asserted and assumed that the laws of physics are not actually abstract, but are real, actual, and causal, and possess a power to govern and mathematically order all things (which makes math also non-abstract, being the “code” or “language” through which the determined order is set). And it is by this rationale that it is asserted, without as much as a blush toward the irony and contradiction, that human beings, their choices, and actions, and thoughts are determined by these physical laws. Or stated another way, there are many (if not most) people who claim that they and everyone else have no actual “free will” from the place of consciously autonomous, moral, volitional and self-aware agency; that bodies and brains are fully determined by natural law–by the mathematical constructs which dictate all processes; and therefore no one actually chooses or thinks or acts for themselves. Conscious existence is an illusion (an illusion of what, exactly, cannot be answered). There is no will. There is no choice. There is no doing. There is only the all-compelling force of physics.

And yet, somehow, without will or choice or volitional action, or self-existence, there IS knowledge. We are told that though man cannot actually think, he can know, and can possess understanding with respect to his categorical determinism. He is not existentially sufficient to individual action, nor does he possess an individual, independent capacity for learning. And yet he can know . He can know and assert with un-ironic certainty that he is absolutely determined by physical law.

People convinced of their own natural determinism declare with unequivocal surety a thing which their own logic and their own admission cannot possibly be true. To say that you can know that you cannot choose what you do and cannot choose what you think and cannot choose what you feel because what you ARE is an absolute function of determinative natural laws OUTSIDE of you is a contradiction so obvious that one must assume that the only reason it is not immediately recognized as self-negating is that it is completely obscured by the smoke of two thousand years of gnostic, Platonist philosophical convention which demands the “enlightened” determinist position. This and the evolution of the specious presumption that the scientist–many or most of whom conflate and infuse their false determinative philosophy with and into what is considered the empirical essence of the natural universe–is the final arbiter of Truth.

2.

To put the assertion more concisely: man knows that he is determined by the laws of physics because he is determined by the laws of physics to know.

How is it that one knows?

Because he is determined.

And how is it that he is determined?

Because he knows.

This is an outrageous and shocking bit of purely circular “reasoning”. And it is shocking because it is so quickly asserted and accepted by people who are otherwise to be considered to possess above-average intelligence.

(Short side note: If the above assertion is true then there can be no consciousness. Man can have no frame of reference for “he”, because “he” or “self” is a concept, and concepts are cognitive, and cognition is determined. And certainly if his thoughts are determined then his brain, which is part of his body is equally determined. In which case ALL of man is subsumed under absolute determinism. There is no individual consciousness because there is no individual body because all bodies are direct products of the all determining laws of physics. More explication of this below.)

Here is the real maliciousness and mendacity of the circular logic:

One knows that he is determined to know; and the knowing is the very, and ONLY, proof possible that he is determined to know. In this case, ultimately, it must be the root EXISTENCE of man which is the very PROOF that everything about him is determined, because what man knows is a direct and absolute function of his existence. Again, this makes man’s knowing of his determinism a function of his utterly determined existence by physical law. And of course it isn’t just knowing, or knowledge, but ALL that man does and whatever capabilities and capacities he possesses is a function of his root, irreducible existence. Therefore, determinism as a function of physical law is unfalsifiable because no matter what man does, or thinks, or asserts, it is proof of the veracity and efficacy of determinism. And this is why this circular reasoning (and circular reasoning in general) is so vile. It co-opts the entire argument by rendering ideas, and thus the argument itself, meaningless. It consigns ideas and all discussion and reason and cooperation into oblivion by making every counter point ipso facto agreement with the premise because it is only possible because of the POWER of the premise to effect it. Man exists–man IS–because he is determined to be. And therefore he knows whatever he knows because he is determined to know. And since ALL assertions, beliefs, ideas, presumptions, assumptions, opinions, hypotheses, theories, confessions of faith, affections, passions, sympathies, inclinations, inferences, and even queries etc. are a function of what man thinks and this a product of his full sum of knowledge and man’s knowledge is determined by the laws of physics, then ALL contrary arguments to determinism become affirmation and proof of it by fiat.

People, this is artifice.

Man’s knowledge is determined because man’s Self is determined. And is absolutely determined by that which is absolutely NOT man. Which…cannot be true. That which absolutely determined man IS absolutely man. Thus, there is no man. THAT’S the only way he is determined. In which case, what is man?

Man is nothing. So man cannot say that he knows. For “he” has been summarily removed from the existential equation.

3.

Man is absolutely determined by the laws of physics, so he knows. Because he knows, he is absolutely determined by the laws of physics. His conscious knowledge of his own absolute determinism by the determinative force–in this case, the laws of physics–is itself likewise by definition an absolute product of the determinative force. Man knows, somehow, that both he and what he knows are a direct and absolute function/product/derivative of natural law which must by its very definition and very purpose render any distinction between itself and man impossible. The tautology thus renders to us this equation:

Man’s knowledge via man, himself = the laws of physics.

Proceeding from this equation is what I call the Law of Absolute Context:

Because of this axiom rooted in the logic of determinative natural law, man does not and cannot possess a frame of reference–which could only be an independent, distinct, autonomous Self–by which to observe and thus define the ABSENCE of determinism as a function the laws of physics. Without being able to define a distinction between what is determined by the laws of physics from what is not determined by the laws of physics, and without being able to claim an individual identity or agency of Self because any such agency must be a direct function of the determinative laws of physics, he cannot possibly know that he is determined by the laws of physics. It’s the same false logic utilized by those who insist that the universe must have been consciously created by God due to the ostensibly non-chaotic, mathematically ordered nature of it. But one only has to point out that without the frame of reference of a DISORDERED universe, which is not possible because of the ABSOLUTE and ipso facto nature of the ORDERED universe, it cannot be claimed that the universe is necessarily ordered and thus must have been consciously created by God. A disordered universe is merely a theoretical abstraction, predicated upon the constant of the material, ordered universe, and a direct function of it. In which case, there is no actual, empirical distinction at all by which to make the comparison that would lead to the conclusion.

It is for this reason I submit that if the laws of physics determine man, man cannot possibly know he is determined, and thus he cannot claim it. The tautology makes it impossible. Man is determined by the laws of physics and therefore, by logical extension, his consciousness is determined, and from that determined consciousness he knows and claims that he is determined by the laws of physics. This necessitates the following corollary: man is determined by the laws of physics to claim what he knows, as a function of his consciousness which is a function of his being which is a function of the determinism of the laws of physics. Man’s Self and therefore ALL of his Self-expression IS nothing more than the EXACT natural law which determines him. By definition then, man is impossible. There is no distinct agency or identity to him. He has no Self and therefore no Self consciousness, no Self-awareness, no Self-knowledge, and no Self-expression–no ideas, no beliefs, no opinions, no assertions. This is why we must vigilantly resist taking seriously anyone who claims our free will is an illusion and our independent, conscious choice impossible because of the determinative power and nature of the laws of physics. Because if man has been entirely subordinated and subsumed by natural law, then he doesn’t actually exist and therefore he cannot know and thus claim that he does not exist.

The context is absolute determinism, you see. There is no context of non-determinism, or conscious agency free from the determinative power of the laws of physics which then creates the comparison that can lead to the conclusion that an independently conscious, moral agent is determined by the laws of physics.

And thus, again, the irreducible axiom must remain, and remain in perpetuity:

“Since there is no distinction between man and the laws of physics, it is impossible that man should know and assert that he is determined by them, these laws.”

Flat Earth Conspiracy: I understand the skepticism, but don’t let this distract you from the real fight

Physics and Metaphysics, , , , ,

Yeah…this flat earth conspiracy thing just isn’t real, man. There are real conspiracies, but this isn’t one of them.

There are several obvious problems with this theory; the biggest problem, however, is: the uniformity of gravity precludes such an earth; gravity would be categorically and self-evidently different if the earth was flat, or disc shaped.

The real question I suspect leads one to consider this flat-earth idea has in actuality nothing to do with a geocentric or heliocentric astronomical construct, but how we actually define what is “center” in a universe which cannot have any location or any age in and of itself because time and space were created AFTER the Big Bang.

You see, if we want to make the earth the center of the universe, we must first realize that “space”, or “location” is not the true plumb line. The real plumb line is not a scientific one, but has to do with how we define man’s metaphysic. If man is absolutely HIMSELF (which he is), then everything revolves around the individual, since the context of YOU, or SELF, is the only existential constant. In fact is the only non-abstract, non-theoretical constant, period.

Thus, to make the planet of Man the center of the universe is a more rational way to view existence philosophically, which, again is where the real fight for freedom happens.

We must all remember that science has nothing to do with Truth; it is an organizational abstraction. Period. Full stop. There can be no scientific “cause” of anything, because before you can have a cause, you must have some THING to initiate causality. This means that the initial cause will itself not be subject to the laws of physics; which makes them fundamentally irrelevant with respect to explaining the nature of existence–and our inability to defend the nature of existence from scientific determinism, the prevailing philosophy today, is precisely why the hordes of authoritarian collectivism march to and fro upon the world almost entirely unopposed .

Anyway…

Since human existence predates science and the concepts it employs, being a function OF man, it cannot have created him.

Again, this is the real fight. This flat earth stuff is just a distraction. Don’t let it.

Part Two: The Moral and Intellectual Drought of “God Controls all Things”

Calvinism/Philosophy, Metaphysics, , ,

RC Sproul says that if God is not in control of every molecule in the universe then He is not God. I say on the contrary–if God is in control of every molecule then He cannot possibly be God; because in this context there can be NO functional difference between God and that which is not God. God is thus God in an infinite vacuum of Himself, since there is no contextual frame of reference, no actual environment, by which to relevantly or efficaciously define God, since by RC’s definition God IS the environment, because He controls it to the point where its very existence–its very essence–is 100% a direct function of the existence of God, eliminating ANY existential distinction by definition. In other words, there is no place where God ends and the environment He “controls” begins. Thus, the doctrine of God’s sovereign control is fully predicated upon the idea that there is no actual divine control at all because there is no distinct essence of anything He is supposedly in control of. Which of course renders the entire doctrine patently absurd and RC an overrated psuedo-intellectual farceur whose impossible theology (if one can call it without snorting) should be met with outright rejection and derision should he not rationally defend his claims. Instead, however, his book sales soar and his ideas are monumentalized.

Sigh.  This is where we are in American Christianity today.  The appeal to “divine inspiration” and “Biblical Infallibity” is the ecclesiasty’s get-out-of-reason free card. Another nail in the coffin of humanity and with it, its God. Which is exactly how the devil wants it. But I’m sure RC’s willful cognitive dissonance won’t allow him to absorb the sum of the guilt he is due, and on sheets of white satin he certainly sleeps peacefully night after night.

Well, what difference does it make? Even if he’s wrong and his ideas are in fact bullets with butterfly wings, man’s Total Depravity ensures that any fallout humanity suffers is well deserved regardless. And see now how the metaphysical and epistemological implications of TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints), and all of its individual points, serve as quite the handy little plan B for each other. If God’s Sovereign Control (the metaphysical sum of all five points) fails RC in a certain context, or he finds himself in an argumentative bind, well there’s always Total Depravity to save him the moral culpability. And if Total Depravity fails there’s always Limited Atonement, and so on and so forth.

So, basically…yeah, RC can pretty much say whatever the fuck he wants, damning to a lifetime of hell and nonsense all who follow his teachings and yet can be confident that he NEVER must reap the just punishment of his deception. He has tenure as a respected theological “intellectual” because the doctrine he espouses justifies his every word, no matter what it is, by design. He can never be wrong because being right or wrong is ultimately (and fundamentally) a matter of reason, and reason, according to “sound doctrine” is completely  irrelevant to Truth. There is no evil for RC to fear as a consequence of his teaching because what he teaches precludes the very reality of evil entirely. And this, my lovely and handsome readers, is precisely why the ecclesiastical authority avoid both accountability and debate almost universally. In a world where wholesale agreement with a theological opinion is the only real “proof” of one’s righteousness and calling and thus salvation, both debate and accountability for the leaders of the church are an abject waste of time. If God hasn’t given you the “grace to perceive” (i.e. categorically agree with) what RC believes and teaches, then there is no point in discussing it with you. He will discuss it with you only after you totally accept it…which of course makes any “discussion” entirely beside the point, but never you mind that, you silly plebe. And if RC happens to teach something fundamentally at odds with reality and thus must necessarily result in harmful if not outright disastrous consequences, well…God’s grace will sustain you, of course.  Magically rescuing you from any real harm or suffering (at least, in heaven, where suffering is no longer necessary to “holiness”…and how exactly that can be possible when Reformed Protestant doctrine specifically demands that morality is inseparably tied to suffering and torment, well…they haven’t quite gotten to explaining that one yet). And if it doesn’t sustain you then God doesn’t love you anyway and you aren’t one of those who have been limitedly atoned for, so you are simply getting the just condemnation your willful–and natural (contradiction alert!)—profanity demands.

And as John Immel might say, Alakazaam, poof! Total absolution for those men specifically charged by God to care for and bring comfort and protection to His sheep even when what they teach and how they act does the complete opposite.

*

Like I said, God cannot exist in an infinite vacuum of Himself–which is the situation demanded by the doctrine of God’s absolute control.  Because in such a situation, the most that can be said about God is a rank contradiction in terms, namely , that God is the God of Himself.  Which of course makes being God irrelevant.  For God cannot be the God of Himself.  And if being God then is irrelevant then the very idea of God is impossible nonsense.  God ceases to have any efficacious meaning at all because there can be nothing He is God OF…that is, there is nothing to provide the rational and meaningful contextual reference for “God” because God, by his utter control of all things, becomes all things.  And in this context, ironically, all things becomes nothing.  For infinity (for example, absolute God) is an “everything” which precludes a reference, rendering this “everything” utterly beyond definition.  And that which cannot be defined cannot be said to serve any purpose, which means it cannot be said to be true, which means it cannot be said to exist; because existence itself demands a reference.  And again there is no reference if God is everything.

Behold again the guile of Satan’s persuasion upon the “leadership” of God’s church, that they would not only espouse and teach such rank blasphemy, but would demand that their laity accept it as well, under threat and penalty of blackmail, violence, slander, excommunication and, in the past (though there is no guarantee it will remain there), murder.

*

To further elaborate upon the points rendered in the previous sections of this article:

You cannot claim that God controls all things without making the explicit distinction between “God” and “things”.  Which means God’s control cannot extend beyond the boundaries of the things’ own distinct and fully autonomous existence.  Which means that God does NOT in fact control all things, because of the necessary limitation of God’s control implicit in the claim itself, which makes the abject distinction between “God” and “things” contradictorily moot and yet apparent by its very claim: namely that GOD controls all THINGS–the distinction is abject even in the very words of the doctrine which contradictorily denies this distinction in its metaphysics and application.  And this means that the declaration that “God controls all things” is on its face a rank logical fallacy, rendering it impossible, and totally incompatible with truth and reality.  Thus, God’s control must be not categorical, but specific–that is, what precisely is God controlling since it cannot possibly be ALL things?  The answer to this is, well, nothing.  God is controlling–in the deterministic sense, which is the intended sense of the doctrine (trust me; I was a Phari…I mean, Calvinist for 15 years)–nothing, because God, since He is the God OF things, neither needs to control them (because God’s being God is in no way dependent upon the actions of things in Creation–God is God no matter HOW creation acts; His own identity has NOTHING to do with what Creation does or does not do, or what man thinks of Him, which is the complete opposite of what RC Sproul teaches when he falsely and irrationally claims that if God is not in control of every molecule in the Universe then He is not God…this is a lie) nor is He able to control them and still claim that He is the God of them…for to control them is to render their very self-existence moot, which means that He cannot be the God of them because He cannot be God of that which does not really exist in the first place. God is defined as God precisely because man is able to define Him thus, due to man’s ability to rightly discern the distinction of God’s unique place and function in his environment, as juxtaposed to himself.  That means that in order for God to thus be God in any rational or efficacious sense, man must be able to freely relate not only to God but to ALL things distinct from himself in his (man’s) environment.  Which necessarily precludes God’s direct and deterministic control of those things.

You see, the ironic corollary to “God controls all things” is ” God controls nothing“, since the “things” in the claim that “God controls all things” when we understand the abject determinism implicit in the claim, can have no autonomous existence of their own.  But since “nothing” cannot exist, by definition, the claim that “God controls nothing” is equally false, because God cannot, again by definition, control that which does not exist in the first place.  That is, since these two claims are corollaries, the logical fallacy of one is the logical fallacy of the other. Both claims are equally meaningless.

You might then just say, “God controls Himself, which is all things”.  But…this is pantheism, first, and second, it is an obviously silly and impossible contradiction.  Because if all there is is God’s Self, then there can be no other things for that Self to be.  Further, God does not control Himself, he is Himself, which is significantly different.  You see, God’s existence is not a function of control, but of identity.  For existence is not conceptually the same thing as control, and it is irrational and intellectually dishonest to conflate the two.  Control of oneself = being oneself is a false equation because control needs an environmental context (a context outside of the reference…which is the Self of the consciously aware agent) in order to be rationally qualified as control.  In other words, that which is doing the controlling must be observably distinct from that which is controlled in order for either concept, “control” or “existence” (existence in this context = the nature of the thing controlling), to have any meaning.  To say that God controls Himself who in turn is doing the controlling is a contradiction.  And thus is an impossible conclusion.

When we talk of one “controlling” something it is always in juxtaposition to an environment–a constant, if you will–that he is not controlling.  But of course the possibility of such an environment is ruled out by the implicit metaphysic demanded by idea that “God controls all things”.  So, no matter how one chooses to examine it, the doctrine of God’s absolute sovereign control is patently false–a subordination of reason to madness–and should not and cannot be accepted and assumed by anyone claiming possession of or interest in the truth.

*

Finally, one further argument for you to consider: Why would an ALL powerful God need to control ALL things.  For the actions of things in Creation could by no means thwart the Will or Identity of an omnipotent God, no?  It would seem, would it not, contradictory to say that God is both ALL powerful and ALL sovereign, as if the two are one and the same–as if absolute control is a manifestation of his omnipotence.  But this does not rationally compute because in order to manifest omnipotence it must be over something; but in the context of absolute control there can be no distinctly-existing something for God exercise His omnipotence upon.  The things He would subject to His omnipotence are merely extensions of Himself, which naturally renders omnipotence a meaningless and irrelevant attribute.

Anyway…that’s a question which, if you held your breath waiting for an answer from the institutional church in America, I suspect you’d significantly hasten your funeral. The essential point to remember in this argument is that God is neither ALL powerful nor ALL controlling because “power” and “control” are relative terms.  Which  means they need a reference–a context, in order to be given meaning.  Thus, “power” and “control” are only true according to a reference by which they can be known as efficacious TO the reference, and that reference then is outside, existentially/metaphysically, both the power and control of God.  Which means that God’s “power” and “control” cannot be absolute.  Again, they are relative.  And the relativity of such concepts must be conceded if we are to maintain the idea that God actually possesses  His own Identity.  But those of you still struggling with the idea of denying God a supreme power that man’s mind is incapable of grasping, because that’s what you’ve been taught all your life by adults who still believe in the Boogey Man and invoke his name to compel and control their children and their laity, rest assure my friends, declaring that God does not in fact have absolute control or absolute power is the exact opposite of apostasy.  Rather it affirms the idea that God has an identity of His own apart from man, and thus can be known by man as God–actually, rationally, relevantly, efficaciously, morally, and truthfully.

The Moral and Intellectual Drought of “God Controls all Things” (Part One)

Calvinism/Philosophy, Epistemology, Metaphysics, , , , ,

To say that God (and you could likewise insert the “Laws of Physics” into this argument–it’s the same determinism) is in control of all things amounts to an impossible contradiction in terms, because the very idea by its own definition specifically declares an absolute distinction between God and the “things” supposedly under his control.  Notice this quote from a magazine I found in the lobby of a “reformed” Protestant Church recently.  The magazine cites the source for this quote as:  Charles Hodge, from volume 1 of his Systematic Theology.

“That God does govern all His creatures and all their actions, is clearly revealed in the scriptures.  And that fact is the foundation of all religion.  It is the ground of the consolation of his people in all ages; and…the intuitive conviction of all men, however inconsistent it may be with their philosophical theories, or with their professions.”

Now, there are numerous things wrong with this abysmal declaration which is an intellectual and rational fraud on its face, not the least of which is the rank presumption and obvious dishonesty employed in passing off a specific and peculiar hermeneutic as proof that determinism is “clearly revealed in scripture”, and that said determinism is the “intuitive conviction of all men”.  Indeed, one could devote an entire essay to the blatant fallacies of passing off utterly subjective interpretive premises as “proof” of what is “self evident”.  (Note:  If it is self-evident only via a particular hermeneutic, then you need to defend the hermeneutic as containing rationally consistent and irreducible metaphysical and epistemological axioms before you claim that it is proof of anything at all.)  However, that’s not the focus of this particular essay.

Notice that in Chuck’s insinuation of the “obvious” reality of God’s absolute control (“That God does govern all His creatures and all their actions”) he nevertheless explicitly and repeatedly refers to absolute distinctions between God and His Creation, i.e.:  God versus Creatures; God verses men; God verses People; God verse men’s philosophy; God verses men’s professions.

Do you see the contradiction?  Do you see the defunct logic?  The rational drought?  The stunted intellect?  This is truly horrific, and people should recoil at the evil implied in such shallow, mystic, and frankly, barbaric and medieval “reasoning”.  And then, once they have recoiled at the ideas Chuck presents, they should feel an even greater revulsion that men like him are hailed as teachers.  God help us.

You cannot make appeals to the absolute sovereign control of God over all things and yet appeal to those “things” as having an absolutely distinct existence of their own, apart from God.  In other words, in order for God to control all things, all things must in fact be declared to be themselves, alone, in order that God may control them.  But by the very determinism implicit in the statement “God controls all things”, such a separate existence is impossible, and thus it is impossible for God to control all things because God cannot control that which does not in fact exist apart from Him.  To say that God controls all things means that he must control the roots of their very existence.  Which means they can have no inherent being of their own, apart from God, which means that in order for God to control them absolutely it must be conceded that these things–that God’s creatures, that all men and their philosophies and professions–are in fact merely a direct extension of God, Himself, which thus means that there is no difference between the two…between God and his Creation.  God’s creation, if he controls it absolutely, cannot be anything distinct from God, but IS God.  And so for God to control all things really means that God simply controls Himself, and there is nothing in existence besides Him.  All things are God.  And it is this rank pantheism which passes for “Biblical Christianity” and “Sound Doctrine”.

Now, I’m not a biblical inerrantist (because the “biblical inerrancy” idea is childlike in its foolishness and naïve its intellectual defense), but I’m pretty sure that pantheism (the notion that all things are God) is NOT Biblical.  Plus, how on earth can the Protestant proponents of deterministic pantheism (tongue twister!) rationally exempt God as the instigator of all sin since they both acknowledge that sin is evil and that God is, in fact, the very existential essence of anything which acts sinfully?

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is merely the nose of the dog.  This is merely a fraction of the utter rational and moral bankruptcy which passes for “spiritual guidance” today in the institutional “orthodox” church (where implicit evil with deadly eternal consequences passes for “sound doctrine”) and merely one small tittle of why anyone who actually loves good and hates evil, and likes people and loves God, should withdraw his hand from Christian Orthodoxy as a he would from the flames of fire.