« Challenge: The Bible Says Men Are Superior to Women | Main | Links Mentioned on the 2/24/16 Show »

February 24, 2016


Of course Adam existed. The (longstanding BTW) questions about the nature of Eden/Paradise and about the nature of those peculiar doors into Eternal-Life / Good-Evil do not change that. Besides, Man is not, on Christianity's premises, entirely material based. So no amount of Dirt / Molecular Cascades can ever "finish" said picture. Immunity from scientism is the only rational conclusion.

Adam, Eden, World:

Of course Adam existed. The (longstanding BTW) questions about the nature of Eden and about the nature of Adam and about the nature of those peculiar Doors into Eternal-Life and into Good-Evil (Privation) do not change that. Besides, Man is not, on Christianity's premises, entirely material based. So no amount of Dirt / Molecular Cascades can ever "finish" said picture.

Think about those peculiar Doors in Eden, and, then, think about what they necessarily entail with respect to what the nature of “Adam” must in fact “be” should Adam be that which is constitutionally soaked through with *neither* the elemental substrates of Eternal-Life *nor* with the elemental substrates of Good-Evil (Privation). We speak here of Man and World as Man is, it seems on all fronts, found in Eden standing between Possible Worlds vis-à-vis God’s freely created Imago Dei.

Off topic, sort of:

[…In all such Worlds vis-à-vis God’s freely decreed Imago Dei (given what that necessarily entails and promises) it is the case that All Sufficiency (God) must pour, be debased, transpose, instantiate, and, per love’s free decree amid reciprocity’s landscape, glorify the Insufficient (glorify the created Imago Dei / Man), just as in all such Worlds Insufficiency (Man) must acquiesce, must at least initially (whether in Eden or out of Eden) come to know his own innate insufficiency and lack and volitional motion and mutability and therein love either the Mutable Self or else the Immutable Other within reciprocity’s landscape, must be filled, be glorified in and by All Sufficiency’s (God’s) timeless reciprocity, and, thereby, per love’s reciprocity, glorify All Sufficiency (glorify God)……but such brevity is left off there in this comment and it is enough to say for now that Christ is unavoidable in all Worlds given the decreed Imago Dei….]

Back to Eden/Man/World:

If the Door into Eternal Life and if the Door into Good-Evil (Privation) are (were) both a molecular (physical, this universe) Pill (fruit) on a molecular (physical, this universe) Tree akin to The Matrix wherein one swallows it and thereby the Actualizations of both of those Doors come about by altering molecular motion, well then one had better be prepared to take a stand and equate the current nature of the current universe with those other natures through those other Doors. Just think about that. Indeed. Whatever the nature of Adam (or of “The Adamic”) was, whatever the nature of “Eden” was, such natures (Eden/Adam) where *not* those irreducible essences which we find inside of Eternal Life *nor* were they (Eden/Adam) those irreducible essences which we find inside of this nature of this world. *IF* Tooth and Claw and the pains of Natural Section are in fact Evil, and *IF* design is in fact soaked through with not only Good but also with all the pains of Good-Minus-Some-Thing (Privation), well *THEN* the various forms of EAAE (from thread comments here at STR’s Bad Design Is A Bad Argument and not to be confused with the EAAN) come crashing through the sky in and by and through what must be paradigm-shifting necessities from the ground up such that even if it turns out (and there is evidence both in science and in Scripture with echoes of such) that the entire show of natural selection is, simply, all the pains of Good-Evil (vis-à-vis final causes and an obviously paradigm shifting privation) well then the Christian genre alone finds the needed solvency for the Non-Theist to painfully borrow from in all his own claims, as in:

Non-Theists faithfully affirm the all-encompassing metaphysical landscape of Genesis and they do so both when observing nature’s unmistakable straining along that incline towards E Pluribus Unum from the ground up through eons of Tooth and Claw, and they do so when observing the schizophrenic array of causations within Privatized Good through those same eons. Their thoroughness in describing such a painful mess is uncanny as they affirm Christianity's metaphysical landscape. [Oh dear…..Christians (of which I am one) don’t panic over the descriptive / prescriptive “E Pluribus Unum”, but, rather, see the *disclaimer* at the end….]

An entire Paradigm, an entire World – Universe – soaked through with Tooth and Claw, soaked through with Privatized Good and thereby Evil, Lack, Brokenness, Thirst, Striving – from A to Z – soaked through with Final Causes and thereby Good, Reach, Teleos, Hope, Becoming – from A to Z – is precisely the World we all affirm, both Non-Theist and Christian.

All the rants of our Non-Theist friends testify on behalf of Scripture's God as whatever mechanism of creation we find employed, including presenting the entire show of natural selection as, simply, all the pains of Good and Evil (vis-à-vis final causes and an obviously paradigm shifting privation), well the Non-Theist just cannot speak coherently about *any* of it *even* on his own terms, whether from the perspective of pain, or suffering, or design and the good, or design and good-minus-some-thing, or the inescapable reductio ad absurdum which the entire materialist project suffers within inherent intentionality, qualia, and Mind, or teleos vis-à-vis purpose, and so on. The Non-Theist cannot comment on any nuance, at all, which necessitates either inherent intentionality or which necessitates design of any degree as even the phrases good design, bad design, stupid design, or great design fall into incoherence. The Non-Theist’s epistemic is insolvent and hence his entire epistemological body just does ride upon the coattails of the only genre on Planet Earth wherein such terms and definitions are actually solvent. That singular genre being, obviously, none other than the singular metanarrative of the Christian paradigm.

We find here that there is a convergence of all things when it comes to Christianity’s metaphysical landscape, necessity, science, and facts. By that we mean two things.


“The universe, however physics and scientific cosmology end up describing it – even if it turned out to be a universe without a temporal beginning, even if it is a four-dimensional block universe, even if Hawking’s closed universe model turned out to be correct, even if we should really think in terms of a multiverse rather than a single universe – will, the Aristotelian argues, necessarily exhibit just these features (potentialities needing actualization, composition, contingency, etc.). And thus it will, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, require a cause outside it. And only that which is pure actuality devoid of potentiality, only what is utterly simple or non-composite, only something whose essence or nature just is existence itself, only what is therefore in no way contingent but utterly necessary – only that, the classical theist maintains, could in principle be the ultimate terminus of explanation, whatever the specific scientific details turn out to be.” (E. Feser)


Regarding the topic at hand, the landscape of Adam, Eden, and World, our ultimate terminus of explanation, whatever the specific scientific details turn out to be, find only two options in a universe such as ours:

[1] It is a universe void of inherent intentionality, it is a universe void of inherent design.

[2] It is a universe constituted of, soaked through with, Final Causes.


*Disclaimer* regarding “E Pluribus Unum” syntax:

Lest those of us who are Christian begin to panic at the descriptive / prescriptive of “E Pluribus Unum”, be assured that such is *not* an express referent to that which *is* “Father, Eternally Begotten Son, Spirit” and so on. *Rather*, such is to help address (in part), among other things, the painfully misinformed presuppositions about Christianity and about Reality which seem to fuel our Non-Theist friend’s struggle with equating “Being Itself” to that which is, irreducibly, “Goodness Itself”. Such carries us into necessary interfaces within all that is perception and within all that is mind and within all that is love and within all that is reciprocity amid the elemental substrates of personhood and thereby force both reason and logic into the embrace of the true over inside of the contours of (stay focused), first, the unavoidable interfaces of Self/Other [.….as in personal interfaces….. I/You….. Self/Other…. Me/You… Knower/Known…. those interfaces and elemental substrates constituting two of our three inescapable distinctions…..]. Then we keep moving for we have not accounted for the whole show just yet as all moral semantics converge within perception’s and within mind’s and within love’s third and inescapable distinction in unicity’s E Pluribus Unum there in the “Singular-Us” embedded in Scripture’s God from A to Z from Whom streams all conceivable means/ends related to Self-Other-Us. No claims upon Goodness Itself are even possible but for the uniquely Christian Archetype which “is” the categorical and unavoidably triune set of interfaces comprising Trinity’s irreducible reciprocity amid the elemental pouring/filling discovered within the simplicity that is the immutable love of the Necessary Being.

The comments to this entry are closed.