Divine Temporality, Craig, Kant, and Epistemics - Thoughts

Ratio-reductionist theology culminates in counter-intuitive discourses. Ratio-reductionist theology is theology that attempts to map divine being and attributes in terms of extra-empirical/counter-empirical, i.e. purely rational conceptualization that is aversive of spatio-temporality, motion, change, plurality, and contingency - well conceptualized in the philosophies of monism and non-dualism.

Empirical theologies, on the other hand, do otherwise. Polytheistic theologies are a good example of these. The divine is spatio-temporal, and other things that come with it.

It is not surprising, therefore, when the logical consequence of something like the Kalam Cosmological Argument would be the attempt to temporalize God as seen in William Craig's position that the timeless God entered time at the time of creation. But, "creating" is a temporal concept, isn't it? If so, it would require God to be temporal before becoming temporal! 

But, why should it be necessary to say that God was or is "timeless"; then, why does it become necessary to attribute temporality to God? 

From the attempt to reconcile the rational categories of uniformity, immutability, abstraction/transcendence, universality, and necessity with the empirical categories of plurality, change, concreteness, particularity, and contingency have spun out various proposals such as platonism, panentheism, process theologies, particular non-dualism, and so on.

Kant was, perhaps, meekest enough to acknowledge that our concepts are limited by our faculties and experiences. He found theology a place not in reason or experience but in action that springs from the moral will. For Kant the pronouncement "The fool has said in his heart there is no God" would mean different from what Anselm understood. Anselm thought that the fool was a rational fool, whose pronouncement was logically-contradictory. For Kant, the fool was a moral fool, whose actions denied God in terms of radical evil. The moral fool might be well-versed in all the arguments for the existence of God while failing to practically know God in his life.


Nathan Zacharias and Margie Zacharias defend Ravi Zacharias

Check out the blog post at Defending Ravi

" My Mom recently sent an email to some friends and family that is being circulated. She’s since asked me to post it here to ensure it’s ongoing accuracy. Good am, Family. I love you all.  I wanted you all to know that I have spent the last week going through every paper and article in […]

Email From My Mom


Buttress of Belief

The Bible does not encourage blind belief. It provides buttresses of belief varying according to context, some of which include:

  1. A miraculous sign (e.g. Moses in Egypt; Isaiah..)
  2. A covenant sign and oath (e.g. Abraham, Lord's Supper)
  3. A surety or guarantee (e.g. Passover..)
  4. A particular requested sign (e.g Gideon's fleece)
  5. A particular factual sign (e.g. Elizabeth to Mary)
  6. A prophetic word - dream (e.g. Joseph to the prisoners)
  7. A prophetic word - knowledge (e.g. Jesus to Samaritan woman)
  8. A prophetic word - foretelling (e.g. Jesus to Peter...)
  9. A healing, providential, protective, deliverance miracle (e.g. Gospels)
  10. An angelic sign (e.g. Resurrection)
  11. A divine stroke (e.g. Uzziah's leprosy, Zachariah's muteness, Miriam's leprosy)
  12. Prophetic fulfillment (Jewish and Gentile, including the Star of Magi)
  13. etcc....
Since the nature of the belief is supernatural, the buttress usually is also supernatural. 
  1. A written legal surety - The Bible (Word of God) 
  2. A living personal surety - The Holy Spirit 
  3. An authoritative signature - The Name of Jesus Christ (to make orders and requests in prayer and word of deliverance)
  4. A testifying community - The Church
Items that must not be considered as buttresses of belief:
  1. Personal feelings (which are fluctuating)
  2. Zeitgeist or spirit of the age (which are more of a fad)
  3. Probabilistic naturalist reasoning (whose final resort is chance and whose counterfactuals are not really factual)
  4. Speculative philosophy (which is mere speculation that attempts to act as an hypothetical gap-filler)
  5. etcc
Any of the non-buttresses will be able to try to explain away the true buttresses (A.1-13). The non-buttresses actually constitute unbelief. They are also explicitly skeptical if not absolutely irrational and are unreliable for any reasonable venture. 

PHOTO: (from dreamstime.com, google images) 


Dialectics of Vaccination

(google images, reuters.com)

The African variant is said to have beaten Pfizer's vaccine according to an Israeli study.

Humans invent vaccine to beat the virus
The virus develops immunity to beat the vaccine... ad infinitum

Dialectical vaccinationism

Zoom classes and alienation

(cartoon circulating on social media nowadays)

Zoom, webex, meet, ...... Pros and cons

1. Safe inside
2. Time saver
3. Less paper
4. Less expensive than classroom
5. Travel money saver
6. Video recording, sharing...
7. Polls, annotations, etc

1. Connection issues
2. More distractions (unless in quiet room and phones off)
3. Screen stress
4. Social alienation
5. Depersonalization (cams off, no response, lack of personal touch)
6. No non-verbal feedback for teacher (when cams off) - highly demotivating
7. Less engagement
8. More burden on teacher to engage class
9. Breakout rooms, not very successful unlike class group discussions
10. Virtualization of life and habit


Resurrection poem


One act of justice
Cancelled our woes
One act of surrender
Defeated all foes
One act of power
Broke the grave
When Christ arose
On Resurrection Day!

It was no fiction,
The crucifixion.
No hallucination,
The resurrection.
They all saw Him die
So does history testify,
And timid apostles did the world defy
After they saw their Lord alive!

He died, He rose, He lives!

On the Internal Witness of Scriptures

I think it is very erroneous to assume that the internal witness of Scripture is unreliable unless supported by external (or extra biblical) testimony. 
1. When witnesses to an account are two or more, the testimony already carries a level of reliability. The Pentateuch, Kings, Chronicles, Prophets, Gospels contain accounts by varying sources that can be cross-referenced to gain a fair historical picture.
2. Cases of sole testimony cannot be disregarded as totally unreliable as per the rule of truth-expression. To stipulate that one must not testify or witness unless his/her experience is shared by others is to impose a gag on truth-expression or the possibility of hearing truth. In fact, it is a sealing of self from the possible sole source of information. Sole testimony, however, is also open to challenge if there can be enough reasons for raising such a challenge. But, in the most central narratives in Scripture, the witness party includes several persons. Thus, as per #1, the combined testimony of all these witnesses demands a hearing.

Latest posts

Popular Posts

Blog Archive