Never Read "A" Verse Of Scripture Nor "A" Chapter Nor "A" Book. Not With Physics and Not With Scripture. “Never Read a Bible Verse” is a timeless lesson from Stand to Reason as per https://www.str.org/w/never-read-a-bible-verse
To paraphrase/springboard off of one particular point there ((there are many but the focus here is initially one item)) which is this: “...A basic rule of all communication: Meaning always flows from the top down, from the larger units to the smaller units…” ((…think of “Transposition” as per https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/05/lewis-on-transposition.html ...)). To springboard, then, off of STR’s observation by extrapolation:
The key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words, and then the key to the meaning of any paragraph comes from the chapter, not just from the individual paragraphs, and then the key to the meaning of any chapter comes from the specific book, not just from the individual chapters, and then the key to the meaning of any individual book in Scripture comes from the Whole Metanarrative that is [Scripture] and not just from the individual books, and then the key to the meaning of the Metanarrative comes from logical lucidity vis-à-vis ontological referents in a specific Metaphysic, not just from [The-Bible], and then the key to the meaning of the Map that is the Metaphysic comes from the Terrain that is the Trinitarian Life and not just from the Metaphysic, and that Terrain sums to Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-a-vis Processions vis-a-vis the Trinitarian Life even as robust explanatory power on all fronts teaches us that just as it is incoherent to say “Physics” somehow “Comes-From” that physics book over there on the shelf, so too it is incoherent to say that Metaphysical Naturalism or that the Christian Metaphysic either does or “can in principle” somehow “Come-From” ANY-thing that reduces to a World-Contingent Explanatory Terminus.
“…..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” …….” ((.. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-is-there-anything-at-all-its-simple.html ..))Everyone knows that. There is an Always and an Already, the Timeless and Eternal “And I am not THAT”. Romans 1:20 gives the same description of the ubiquitous first-person experience. “…..For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse….”
We need not conflate what Paul was discussing in Romans 1:20 for a strawman. The notion of “There Is A God And I Am Not He” is plain. It’s also intuited by 99.99% of people who have ever lived. That’s all that is referring to. If we want to go past that then one will need arguments that such is a false description of the human narrative. Peaks and Nadirs do not debunk that and in fact are predicted and affirmed by them and, also, any 100 year slice of history is just that – a Peak/Nadir and not the Whole Narrative.
Regarding salvation, that same simplicity of “It will have to come by that Other/Outer and not by Me” which is simply the necessary outcome of the simplicity which we found in the aforementioned “there is a god & I am not he/it”. There is the Necessary & Timeless and I Am Not THAT ((so to speak)) and IF there is to be “The Good” or “Eternal Life” ((and so on)) well THEN it is logically necessary that such arrive/transpose in/by/through/of that Other/Outer ((whatever it might be)). The simplicity of logical lucidity there on occasion catches our Non-Theist friends off guard as they misguidedly attempt the purely Binary ((….vis-à-vis Knowledge / Darkness / Light / Awareness…)) rather than what we find in Scripture’s wider metanarrative ((…vis-à-vis the real/actual categories of  Rational/Irrational Belief and  Rational/Irrational Non-Belief and  Culpable/Non-Culpable Belief and  Culpable/Non-Culpable Non-Belief…)).
Notice that Physicalism makes no gains here just as it is also no use insisting that Intuition-Full-Stop is what the Christian Metaphysic is peddling. It isn’t. Whereas we find that “Illusion” of all which “sums” to Abstraction||Mind||Self in fact IS what the 2% sliver of all who have ever lived ((Non-Theists/Atheists)) end up peddling. It’s fine for our Non-Theist friends to hold on to the Magic of Non-Reductive-Something in order to claim that they can hold onto the Irreducible Self/I-Am – but one need not equivocate there nor with the false identity claim of [A] the explanatory terminus of the Christian Metaphysic is or equals [B] Intuition-Full-Stop. While the Münchhausen Trilemma cuts off all options for Non-Theism, such is not the case with the Christian Metaphysic.
The silliness of “Babies are Atheists” are a distraction as neither what Babies Don't Believe ((Math, God, Physics, Whatever)) nor what is popular among adults is the point for ANY coherent explanatory terminus ((…or ToE // T.o.E. // Theory of Everything // Metaphysic // and so on…)) because neither counts as anything coherent in that role. The claim in Romans 1:20 is the same question which Anthropology 101 asks and each makes the same observation with respect to the ubiquitous human experience of “There Is A God & I am Not He” and of what Lewis refers to as the Numinous as well as the peculiar affairs of Ought & Good are all clearly NOT found within Non-Theism’s purely Binary attempts at Knowledge and Darkness and Light and Awareness ((Etc.)) but clearly ARE found in Scripture’s wider metanarrative ((…vis-à-vis the real/actual categories of  Rational/Irrational Belief and  Rational/Irrational Non-Belief and  Culpable/Non-Culpable Belief and  Culpable/Non-Culpable Non-Belief…)).
All of that leaves Paul’s Romans 1:20 and basic Anthropology in agreement across the eons of recorded human history. Now, that's fine as far as it goes but that is NOT "The Argument" that Paul nor anyone here ((Christians etc.)) is making with respect to "Evidence” given that on Scripture’s own terms our own World-Contingent-Terminus of “Experience” is not “Enough”. One must “Follow Through” and in fact that is what Paul does in Romans and it is what everyone must do because that is WHERE “ToE” or “Theory of Everything” or “Metaphysic” or “Logical Lucidity” ((Etc.)) leads us.
Illusion & Insanity end up being “Equivalent” terms once there is “No Mind” and in fact Non-Theism’s logically compelled elimination of Mind and the syllogisms which said Eliminativism populates just as it is “where” we find our Non-Theist friends going as they attempt to foist some sort of Non-Reductive brand of Whatever-ism/Physical-ism/Etc. We must ask our Non-Theist friends the following:
“….What is your philosophy of Mind / Self / Intentionality? Specifically we mean the veracity of the first person experience or, as some call it, the “Epistemological Experience” vis-à-vis all first person perception with respect to the Irreducible Seat or Hard Stop of "I" / "Self" / “i-am” “i-reason” / “i-think” / “i-exist” …..?”
Our Non-Theist friends need to be careful with replies such as “Philosophy of mind? That’s insane! More philosophy of mind? No! I won't! I can't! So just stop asking! You're insane!" The reason is that there are centuries essays and collections of content from all brands of world-views ((Etc.)) and NOT just “Christian-Stuff” and if one overreaches then one must insist that all of that is incoherent ((….well… IF any such Blaise-Hand-Waving is to be one’s posture…)).
Similarly, regarding Disagreement and Knowledge and Sin the Non-Theist may defeat himself because the categories of [Knowledge] and of [Sin] and of [Contingent Being] all force the topography of “Incline” and “Discovery”. The “category” termed “Knowledge” has two “sub-categories” termed [A] disagreement and [B] discovery and the mistake our Non-Theist friends often make is that the existence of the sub-categories somehow prove that “Knowledge” is an illusion. If one takes the time to work through that one finds that it is actually the reverse with respect to any contingent mind – namely that the terms “Disagreement” and “Discovery” are actually Gibberish BUT FOR that which cannot be less than “Knowledge” ((…it helps to think of “contingent mind” here as that clearly rules out Total Knowledge and helps us avoid conflations and false identity claims…)).
All of that is why the Constant which we find is not “The Bible” but instead it is that which precedes any World-Contingent Anything – namely that which sums to [Pure Act] vis-à-vis [Being Itself] vis-à-vis [Logos] in Descent vis-à-vis [Logos] in Ascent vis-a-vis [Scripture] — and NOT “Just-Da-Bible”. The bible is not, and cannot be, the Fourth Person of the Godhead but is in fact a World-Contingent terminus. In fact all things Adamic sum to the SAME state of affairs and so cannot “Self-Account”.
Physics doesn’t come from physics books. Physics books exist because of Physics. Books come from something Wider & Higher and our Non-Theist friends don’t get to pretend that this or that “slice” or “pocket” of reality can be examined in isolation. Why? Because reality isn’t like that. And reality matters. The Bible is one such Slice of the World-Contingent [set] of Possible Worlds/Counterfactuals and so, again our Non-Theist friends don’t get to pretend that this or that “slice” or “pocket” of reality can be examined in isolation. Why? Because reality isn’t like that. And reality matters.
In short — what the Non-Theist must interact with at every turn is not the Physics-Book-Full-Stop but the Physics – not “Genesis Full Stop” ((Etc.)) but the far Wider and more Robust Christian Metaphysic and the explanatory power it enjoys. Why does it enjoy such explanatory power? Four reasons:
1. ...because it connects the most dots & leaves the least amount of tension
2. ...because it does NOT force any Reductions to Absurdity and/or Brute Fact
3. ...because Non-Theism cannot even in principle connect the dots we must all connect except by eliminating the very dots in the process
4. ...because Non-Theist forces Reductions to Absurdity and/or Brute Fact.
The ARROW of Reason’s demands for satisfaction vis-a-vis [Knowledge] & [Syllogism] & [Abstraction] moves *FROM* the stuff of [A] reason, logic, perception, and reciprocity vis-a-vis Irreducible Being as Irreducible Self-Giving *INTO* the stuff of [B] Totality vis-à-vis Communique *INTO* [C] the stuff of Scripture. That is described http://disq.us/p/22h38j5 ((...also linked with https://randalrauser.com/2019/06/why-belief-in-divine-inspiration-commits-the-reader-to-wrestling-with-scripture/#comment-4503201521 …)) which opens on the comment which starts off with the following:
The Arrow's Direction: One moves from Reason. Logic, & Love's Reciprocity into Divine Communique into Scripture — as per the following:
"......But then you learn that it was the final work of the great Ingmar Bergman. The belief that Bergman is the director will commit you to another viewing as you look for meaning and significance where you hadn’t seen it before......." (...from R.R.'s opening post...)That speaks quite well to the fact that Scripture is not the reason the Christian believes Scripture to be one part of the Divine Communique with respect to Totality v. God, but, instead, it is the other way around.
Both reasoning  from Scripture moving outward and also reasoning  from "outside" moving into Scripture are both modes which demand evidence and lucidity and simply cannot change the nature and demands of rational inquiry and of rational metrics.
""That is all this boils down to, if people are honest...One side believes things, more-or-less, because the Bible says so.” Not exactly. It matters, doesn't it, why one side believes the Bible." (by WisdomLover)The post titled, How Natural Theology Helps Strengthen the Authority of the Bible is at https://www.str.org/w/how-natural-theology-helps-strengthen-the-authority-of-the-bible and the following are a few excerpts from its com-box or comment section:
Well stated. As usual. BOTH reasoning  from Scripture moving outward AND also reasoning  from "outside" moving into Scripture are both modes which demand evidence and lucidity and simply cannot change the nature and demands of rational inquiry and of rational metrics…..
….With or without Scripture’s express vectors it is the case that logic compels reason herself into the triune (…btw the timeless reciprocity of love’s irreducible metaphysic also does….), but, that’s all quite another topic (sort of) than the intent of the OP (opening piece).
That said, it is worth a brief comment in order to shed light on the fact that the creation of God which is the testimony of God given to Man also includes our own consciousness and as reason and logic press down upon that entire arena she begins to spy the unavoidable contours of something irreducibly triune. Non-Theistic thinkers do most of the Christian’s work for him – if the Christian is patient – as they race towards reality’s epicenter (…the Divine Mind…) and once they leave materialism behind they arrive in some close or distant cousin of Solipsism and – lest God – pull up short. It’s uncanny as we follow the nature of [A] our own “contingent” consciousness and work our way towards and into the nature of [B] “necessary” consciousness vis-à-vis all the philosophical work of necessity, contingency, divine simplicity, Pure Act, potential, “Being Itself”, and what lands in the infinite consciousness of the Divine Mind….. […as per https://metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/ which was in an earlier form in that comment box etc…].
I don't know all the writings you mention………….
What Precedes What? Christianity preceded the Bible. Christianity does not exist because of the Bible. The Bible exists because of Christianity. The irreducible and the true carry forward to the collection of ontic-referents in a thoroughly trinitarian metaphysic and THAT stands on its own – NOT on the Bible.
This is what it MEANS to say that the Bible stands on the irreducible and the true, on said referents in said metaphysic, and not on its own.
This is WHY the category of Discovery is not only possible but necessary.
This is WHY transposition reaches all possible reference frames, all possible levels of knowledge, through all possible cultures ((…see http://disq.us/p/20brudy which is also linked with https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/fundamentalist-apologetics-comes-of-age-a-review-of-evidence-that-demands-a-verdict/#comment-4373339542 …)).
This is WHY that very same transposition is not only possible but necessary.
This is true not only of Scripture but of all of creation, writ large, and it cannot be any other way for the irreducible and the true, for all ontic-referents in the Christian’s thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic as the Trinitarian Life is forever Beneath and Above, forever the Always and the Already.
Massive question-begging emerges regarding Mind, Perception, and Physical Systems when one "Stops" at something akin to "....notions of space, time and causality fail to explain what we see..."
The rational reply to that is "No Kidding."
There is no evidence that Space-Time is ontologically irreducible and in fact the testimony of Physics is weighted quite heavily to the conclusion that it is NOT reality's Rock-Bottom. Physics-Full-Stop cannot even in principle explain what we need it to explain and that is not dangerous because all that means is that we are still free to follow physics as she testifies of something beyond herself. To insist on “Stopping at Physics” becomes, at some point, a move which forces “even in principle” / logically compelled reductions to absurdity.
That same cognitive dissonance forces some to foist a realism when it comes to the Diagnostician as the Contingent Conscious Observer appealing to his own Contingent Abstractions of his own Contingent Mind of his own Contingent Being – and that Circularity of Contingencies should leave us quite UN-surprised at its failure.
Sean Carroll is helpful and so twelve excerpts from his book "Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds And The Emergence Of Spacetime" are listed at http://disq.us/p/249o65p ((...also linked with https://randalrauser.com/2013/04/substance-dualism-as-atheistic-heresy/#comment-4611673645 …)). That opens onto the comment which starts off with “Hylemorphism In The Quantum Wave – Part 2” and it has those twelve quotes. Additional context is in “Dualism In The Quantum Wave? Sorry. No.” which is at s http://disq.us/p/24auxns ((…also linked with https://randalrauser.com/2013/04/substance-dualism-as-atheistic-heresy/#comment-4613668840 …)).
It is circularity to insist on Realism when we diagnose our own contingent abstractions and thereby claim that what they are telling us is of any value whatsoever. Any stream of ((This & This / Then-That & That / And Also This / And finally the Illusion / And finally the Reduction to Absurdity…)) is *ITSELF* without merit. Recall that Brute Fact just is one more Reduction to Absurdity ((…see https://metachristianity.com/platonism-and-be-ing-and-do-ing-and-pure-act-and-counterfactuals-and-moral-facts/ …)).
In the 12 quotes/excerpts of Sean Carroll's book we find in number eight a question:
"In the present context, how is an immaterial mind, lacking extent in space and time, supposed to cause wave functions to collapse?....”We cannot forget that extension into time and space is merely a useful description of one particular slice of the much larger Quantum Wave Function or even of Many Worlds and as such it is not binding at all with respect to larger [fields / waves / branches / whatever]. Regarding extension into space as it relates to Mind we find that same problem defeating this or that [QM-Full-Stop] or [Quantum Wave Full Stop] or ANY terminus of [Non-Theism] and that peculiar problem is briefly described by Dr. Bonnette in the following:
Some of our Non-Theist friends insist that "What "I" "See" over there is not explained by what "I" "See" over here" and therein there is a kind of autohypnotic fiction which they will term "I"/“Self” – but which they will also insist somehow retains both its essence and existence as the Non-Theist “him*self*” continues marching on in his Scientific Realism happily Diagnosing "Illusion-Out-There".
But of course existence & essence with respect to Being Itself || Reason Itself just is the crux of metaphysics and it is THAT which Non-Theism “itself” is forever avoiding when it is asked to reply Ya/Na on the veracity of the First Person Experience vis-a-vis the Intentional Self/Mind vis. "i-am" vis-à-vis what some refer to as the our First Person Epistemological Experience.
Obviously when pressed to go “there” our Non-Theist friends feign a dislike for the tedious unpacking such a journey takes when in fact we find, often but not always, that what is in play is simply that fact that knowing the price which their own truth-value will suffer ((that fateful Illusion vis. all Abstraction Etc.)) leads them to evade and hedge rather than to describe to the best of their ability ((via Physics perhaps?)) their explanatory terminus. That totality of loss vis-a-vis all contingent abstractions vis. all contingent minds vis. all contingent beings "just is" the full-on elimination of Mind Itself with any sort of Being Itself vis-à-vis Reason Itself ((…so to speak…)).
The flip-side is that many Non-Theists affirm that the First Person Experience of Irreducibility and of Intentionality and Irreducibility vis-a-vis Self/Mind all ultimately sums to illusion. Of course many will never actually *specifically* address the veracity or lack of veracity there regarding our own First Person Experience // Perception. Instead they only speak of what they think might account for *it* — but never *it* and never its *veracity* even as they often insist they are NOT “Equivocating/Conflating” but are ONLY pointing out that they can achieve the critical mass of “An Illusion that is sooooo CLOSE to what we Intuit/Perceive as “I” / “Self” that 99% is ENOUGH”. In short they wish to concede the Elimination of Mind but then “stop there” and never hash out the unavoidable downstream consequences of that.
Let’s unpack that last sentence of “In short they wish to concede the Elimination of Mind but then “stop there” and never hash out the unavoidable downstream consequences of that.” That leads to the following:
Veracity is a simple term with respect to perception and we get that our Non-Theist friends want to explain what they believe accounts for the perception but it is disingenuous because they go down that road and then fail to be forthcoming with respect to the veracity of the perception. They opine, “But we said “it” was not actually “it” but rather an illusion that is 99% and that’s “enough…..”. Yes, and notice what that actually leaves out. They have told us what they think might account for *it* — that 99% is ENOUGH and so on — but they never take the next step with respect to what forfeiting *it* entails and so, therefore, despite appearances, they never actually DO tell us of *its* actual *veracity*. The term “veracity” cannot be “addressed” when the ontic-content which actually entails the veracity is cut-off and then never looked at as one proceeds to plow ahead “As-If” it was NOT cut-off.
Subjective & Objective:
Non-Theism begins and ends in Metaphysical Naturalism’s Necessary Conservation of [No Irreducible Mind], of [No Irreducible Self], of No Irreducible Nature || Ontologically Irreducible of any such ACT or THING and it gets still worse for Metaphysical Naturalism’s Necessary Conservation of [No-I-Am] // [No-Mind] is true at all points even as it is true whether we move from Bottom Up or from Top Down – no matter where we start – no matter where we stop. The Final Elimination of the entirety of the ((...as it is called by some...)) First Person Epistemological Experience vis-à-vis our own “Irreducible Seat of Intentionality” vis-à-vis [“I”—Hard-Stop] is an Ontic Absolute BUT FOR Equivocation // Circularity // Absurdity.
(1) In short all [Act] & [Thing] vis-à-vis Mind, Perception, Self, Identity – all of it – is “Just-Subjective” and therefore is NOT objectively real.
(2) The Self is not Objectively Real.
(3) You the “i-am” are not real / is not real.
(4) "You" don’t “really” exist.
BUT…somehow ((our Non-Theist friends assure us))… we’re never told how… An Objective Measurement made by “You” is just that – Objective.
THEREFORE…somehow… we’re never told how…the Objective Measurement is Objective because…because Mind, Perception, Self, and Identity “really exist” even though, if we want to get all serious about it and get “real about it” well then – sure – yeah – Mind, Perception, Self, Identity – all of it – is not “objectively” real.... "But that’s okay…" [Shrug] "It’s As-If…. It’s Enough…"
(1) Subjective & Objective: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/09/objective-and-subjective.html
(2) Context of Discovery & Context of Justification: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/05/context-isnt-everything.html
One problem ((there are many)) with Non-Theism’s / Metaphysical Naturalism’s Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] from Bottom Up || Top Down vis-a-vis the fundamental||irreducible nature of ANY “X” is its relentless demands upon all ontological possibility — Full-Stop.
Christian scientists agree with Non-Theistic scientists “given Non-Theism” regarding perception, causation, semantic intent, and the intentional “Mind/Self” vis-a-vis “i-am”. Metaphysical Naturalism’s necessary conservation of [No-I-Am] subsumes [Reality] from Top-Down||Bottom-Up. The Christian agrees on that Reduction to Absurdity “Given Non-Theism”.
Any Category of Emergence — whether [Material to Reason] or [Immaterial to Reason] — which fails to satisfy Reason’s relentless demands for lucidity does/will in the end sacrifice // eliminate “Reason Itself” vis-à-vis “Being”.
EMERGENCE? IRREDUCIBLE MIND?
From David Bentley Hart: “EMERGENCE & FORMATION” as per https://metachristianity.blogspot.com/2020/01/consciousness-and-emergence-and-formation.html
[1st of 36] https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1206506912931549184?s=20
[36 of 36] https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1206510410842681344?s=20
Christianity’s Lack of Special Pleading:
The following excerpts from a discussion look at that:
What special pleading? [Being Itself] is reasoned *into* by simply following the evidence. It’s not reasoned *from* ((it’s not starting with God and working down)). The objection of special pleading fails simply because it fails to address the nature of [distinction] wrt (A) that which lucidly arrives within the self-explanatory vis-à-vis [Being Itself] vis-à-vis [Reason Itself] and (B) that which necessarily arrives within either Brute Fact or else Reductio.
We simply start at the Neonate’s Blank Slate Free of Presuppositions and travel forward into Perception and Observational Reality and we just keep connecting the dots as our First Person Epistemic Content of “I” / “Mind” / “Reason” / “Logic” and so on just keeps walking and observing. What emergence of Mind-Itself are you talking about? What emergence of Reason-As-Being-Iself are you talking about? The Christian is afforded the Principle of Proportionate Causality with respect to Mind Itself as Being Itself but your Non-Theism is not. Whence [I-Become] vis-à-vis [I-Am] vis-à-vis [I-Think] v. [I-Reason]? All vectors necessarily *Begin* & *End* within reality’s concrete furniture and therein Non-Theism’s Necessary Conservation of [Non-I-AM] from Bottom-Up/Top-Down compels Elimitivism’s various melodies in your syllogisms. And that’s fine. But you needn’t try to equate your Non-Theism’s Toolbox to the Toolbox of the Christian Metaphysics.
That is “WHY” Harris & Rosenberg & Carroll & Churchland & Etc. all find — at bottom — no *ontological* *distinction* amid Self/Non-Self vis-à-vis Mind/Mindless. And? Is temporal becoming ontologically irreducible? One has not addressed *anything* until one has addressed the problem of coherence which any Non-Theistic paradigm encounters with respect to any (a) Past Eternal Anything ((Presentism)) & (b) Static/Changeless Anything ((Eternalism)) & (c) Perception vis-à-vis Mind vis-à-vis Reason vis-à-vis the illusion of Self.
Existence & Essence with respect to Being Itself || Reason Itself just is the crux of metaphysics and it is THAT which you avoid when pressed to reply Yes/No on the veracity of the First Person Experience vis-a-vis the Intentional Self/Mind vis-a-vis [i-am] || [I-AM]. Mind // |Self // Reason // Being ((...I-AM...)) *is* the Crux of Essence/Existence whether you like it or not & your Hand-Waving "there" reveals a peculiar yet tenacious line of dissonance in what you've chosen to embrace and in what you've chosen to refuse.
Rightly Rejecting Moral Absurdity:
Our Non-Theist friends often use Game Theory as they (on the one hand) insist that Morality is subjective with respect to preferences and goals and also (on the other hand) objective with respect to actual strategies with actual optimizations – hence the Strategy to Optimization is objective while the Choice of which Goal is subjective. The problem with that is that “Optimization” cannot be Objectively-Objective unless there is an actual [objective] INCLINE with respect to Better/Worse. Without that we have what D.B. Hart refers to as Being within a plain in which all vectors vis-a-vis Being converge in a metaphysical armistice of eternally colliding ontological equals. The term “Distinction” suffers an eventual deflationary truth value which is total and complete.
- Pantheism = All-Is-God Full-Stop. Notice: No Ontic Distinctions.
- Non-Theism = All-Is Full-Stop. Notice: No Ontic Distinctions.
- Being *in*totum* as Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-a-vis The Trinitarian Life = The-Good Full-Stop. Notice: Full Ontological Distinctions are retained from Top-Down / Bottom-Up
"“Calvinism”….or Eternal Conscious Torment….or babies in hell…. But that’s Morally Absurd…. It’s a moral absurdity…that’s one of the reasons I reject it…and one of the reasons I’m an atheist…."
(1) The Trajectory of All Ontological Arrows Part 1 https://metachristianity.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-trajectory-of-all-ontological-arrows-1.html
(2) The Trajectory of All Ontological Arrows Part 2 https://metachristianity.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-trajectory-of-all-ontological-arrows-2.html