TIME: Revisiting McTaggart's C Series

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
161

But you said O doesn’t exist. O is existing as part of omnitemporal Trinity. A part that is hyperthetical to us until we are present to it (except insofar as we are already there with it being present to us there) & we are hypothetical to us in it — but not to the omnitemporal Trinity in every time t.

It’s this weird thing where it’s both A and B directions because we are moving towards it (our future selves) and it is (they are) moving towards us. Like non-canceling crosscurrents where past meets future.

Ask anybody who’s ever had the rest of their life flash before their premembering eyes and then lived it while postmembering the premembering the postmembering premembering postmembering & on & on & on. They’ll tell you.

162

I think my point is that to know the future is to know the mind of God, and outside of prophets and prophecy, and the resulting scripture, there is no way for us to ever know that, unless it is presented to us somehow by God himself.

Everything I assert regarding time is from a human standpoint, not a divine omnitemporal one. That’s probably why I’m not much use to you here.

But if we assume that God exists in all times, then God alone knows the future, and can operate non-temporally at will. I do believe this happens.

163

But if you assume God can, what stops you from seeing as that other phenomena also can?

In the sense that we don’t know what’s under God. It could be stacks of stacked infinities.

We can’t know the entire unfolding, to use Ichthus’s term, therefore we also cannot know how much of it we don’t know.

164

Worse yet, random, even banal snippets that don’t tie into anything and have no ulterior significance.

Which makes me believe it more. Why would Nature provide some dramatic arc? It’s just random criss crossing of chemicals through the dimensions.

God is Great. Much greater than even the devout give Him credit for.

165

Just because God can, doesn’t mean mortals can, at least not without assistance from God, that’s my angle.

Infinity is boundless, so not sure how it can be stacked. One infinity at a time is enough for me, thanks, and that is the endless process that gives rise to reality as we know it.

We can’t know anything that is not yet realised, we can only guess, or be guided.

166

No, absolutely.

My point is, from your own human perspective, what do you base the limits you ascribe to human reality on, considering we know that those definitely don’t exist for God, and we also don’t, can’t, know the “area” between God and us (in scale).

We also don’t know much of what is realized. We don’t know even how much we don’t know. We don’t even know how flawed our concept of realization, of reality, is. Our only anchor is God.

Infinity simply means endlessness. More than one thing can be endless.

1 Like
167

I see you put a “confused” smiley.

You made some claims about what is and is not possible for humans. My question was what you base certainty of these bounds on, and founded the question on the fact that God does not have those bounds, and we don’t know what lies between us and God.

168

Well exactly, I am explaining from a human perspective, not a divine one, and the only rational human perspective is that all we can know for sure is what is happening right now, it is the only moment in time that represents absolute truth for us. The past is a pattern in the present, and the future is the unresolved potential of the present. Is any of that disputable?

It’s not a confused smiley, it’s “thinking”.

169

I always fail these tests. Maybe I’m on the spectrum.

Yes.

I think, before I start disputing, I first want to point out that probably only God can know the entirety of the true limits of mortals.

A large portion of the philosophical mass is dedicated to whether we can, in fact, know that, if that knowledge would be “for sure,” what even right now is, etc.

But I interpose God, here. There are certain things we are sure of, can be sure of, about and in life, even though actually no rational account can be given to cover that certainty. Therefore the link is God.

What else do we know about God. Well, that He is limitless, and that we cannot comprehend His scale. This means that, even within this our mortal scale, things can be that we have no knowledge of.

Do you mean a point? A segment? These are only some of the problems of trying to put absolute reality in human conceptual terms. Divine reality precedes us.

Yes it is that. It is also a present in the past. It is a mistake to formalize these concepts too rigidly, they are reference points for something we all experience, which is reality, life.

Life is a divine gift, not an accident with God grafted on top.

That’s assuming something on the basis that it has not happened yet. Maybe the potential is resolved, and the future is simply time unfolding. You would have no basis for asserting one or the other.

What we do know is that “future” refers to something, that thing is ultimately not conceptual, and we all know what the thing is.

Explicating does not dig into reality. It builds on top of it. A tool, not an eye.

Now, if you accept the fact of conceptual limits, of the limits of concepts in reality, then you can do what scientists do and work with the concept of time in a much more malleable way. But you will then never think any of it to be absolute, or even real. Just theses. God will be there every step of the way, with His infinite distance.

Off to do chores now. I really did misinterpret the smiley.

170

I think it would make a great postmodern apocalyptic movie, honestly. A totally random prophet of insignificant details really making everyone fully aware of how empty and bored they feel, contributing to heightened awareness of their God-shaped hole… like an apocalypse of angst, ennui and mourning that sends them chasing God to church. Like even the news anchors have nothing to report except the mass revival, and all the powers that be are freaking out about it. Everybody literally quit their job and only the ones with meaningful jobs that don’t violate anybody’s consent still show up voluntarily because they know their worth. All the weapons stop working, too. The elite want to riot, but they’re such a small group, nobody pays attention. They have to glean their food from the fields…. stuff like that.

171

The second half of that doesn’t follow from the first.

You grafted it.

172

People don’t listen to what may or may not be true.

You could prophesy and have it happen, and people still not have heard you.

What people hear is what is already in their narrative path.

It’s why philosophy is such a special thing.

173

Already in their narrative path? Sometimes you don’t see some things except in hindsight — the disciples lived that out.

In Jesus’ case, he left the breadcrumbs intentionally.

Spacely space sprockets is everybody leaving breadcrumbs they don’t even know they’re leaving.

174

It seems to me slightly blasphemous to read intention in God as Man.

But maybe that’s just the Catholic/Protestant divide.

175

Anyway, I am being dishonest. I don’t believe for a microsecond the Evangelical accounts of God as Man. I think those accounts having percolated into ceremonial religion has done great harm.

I don’t think that has much effect into what I consider the genius of your triadic and general religious insight.

Thusly then I will butt out for now. Cigarettes? Food? To be human.

176

Are you claiming to be Catholic without believing Jesus is God? …just checking.

I think both you and Niall should each post a video of your best a cappella version of Amazing Grace.

177

It won’t be amazing if I sing it, and I doubt there will be much grace received from those who have to listen, either.

178

What I said was that I don’t believe the Evangelium for a microsecond.

Though my heart hates going against the Church, I suppose that does mean I can no longer call myself a Catholic.

179

I might do you that song, though.

180

Sang it enough times into the void of the passing wind.