24 January 2016

Endlessness is also just a word

Beloved reader,

Not to make too big of a deal about this, but yesterday I wrote a Web Bloggy Blog about the Deity, and it contained a swanky oversight that I want to explain…

Actually, it wasn’t an oversight; for I was aware of my actions—in fact, I even savored the feeling of deviousness—but, for those who refuse to give me the benefit of the doubt until I’ve bribed SCIENCE to prove that I’m correct, I will now set the record straight…

In my entry, I stated that it was equally fair for me to claim that I either believe OR disbelieve in God, because (and I quote):

God is a label, a word—just as a dog is a dog and also not a dog: He whom I praise is a type of furry quadruped, yet also not exactly the name that I call Him; He is only as it were that particular name.

I titled today’s sermon “Endlessness is ALSO just a word” as a way of granting that it was unconscionable for me to declare the above statements with regard to God while failing to admit that they would be just as belittling if applied to my own preferred notion. I even began a part of yesterday’s musings with the statement “Here is why I speak of God as being a label for Endlessness, rather than the other way around…” as if I were going to offer a decent reason for barking in this manner; but nothing that follows those words is the least bit persuasive.

A philosopher might equally well assert that God is the true reality, and Endlessness is but an instance of divine handiwork. It’s like that ancient road-crossing winner: “Chicken or egg?” (Since the world is spherical, the smallest step south is the furthest trip north, relative to the starting line—in the same way, a father is his son’s own eldest offspring; as Christ warned Jehovah: The last shall be first.)

But the reason that I favor the primacy of Endlessness is that it envelops both clocktime and supertime. God owns only the former: in order for the Deity to appear on the scene before Endlessness, a time predating time must give birth to God (supertime is ever­present); since the term “before” is unable to signify anything, if deprived of temporality (either the inferior or preeminent model); therefore, God can exist prior to clocktime only if supertime permits temporal motion to the Deity.

What I’m trying to say is that even if God preceded Endlessness, so that Endlessness can be thought of as God’s accomplishment (rather than speaking of God as a human achievement within Endlessness), then there must be an even Higher Endlessness bounding the super-temporal bubble in which the LORD produced clocktime. And, no, it is not possible that a Superior God created the ultimate Endlessness that contains our Watchmaker Deity’s counterfeit version; because, as it is written in the very same essay: My bias is for FLUX or FIRE. Thus I ask, Why would a writer who prefers these particular things allow the idea of God to usurp their priority!?

If I teach my disciples that God invented inconstancy, the church will only demand: “Then what created this Creator?” Whereas, when I demonstrate that God evolved out of CHANGELESS-CHANGE, my congregation is satisfied: for it is obvious that All ensues from Itself Alone and preceded Everything Else but its twin sibling Endlessness.

I hope that this clears up the inaccuracies of my last diary entry.

No comments:


More from Bryan Ray