c.2007.09.12
ed.2010.02.02.01 (Concept Draft)
If every cause is truly an effect of a previous cause, then the only resolution for that paradoxical "First Cause" is that this "First Cause" must have transcended all natural law--must have even transcended that which is ordered, creation itself. Only by not being bound under natural law can that "First Cause" not be required to be preceded by another cause.
That which is above Nature, above natural law, evidences a greater and much higher "Transcendence".
If there is order--and no randomness--in everything I see, then reasonably, I must conclude that I am not random. And if I am a "result", then it is reasonable for me to believe that I have been caused into an "ordered" existence by something much greater and "transcendent" than myself, greater even than this universe.
This transcendence above and within nature, is what I call Heaven.
Natural Transcendence
Subject
Apologetics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I hope you're not offended, but I think you can be more concise and clearer in you wording.
For example, it would be clearer if the 1st sentence read:
"If every cause is truly an effect of a previous cause, then that paradoxical "First Cause" must have transcended all natural law and that which is ordered, creation itself."
AND, the wording in the 2nd paragraph is redundant and wordy in general. So, maybe:
"If there is an order in everything I see, then I can
conclude I have been caused into an "ordered" existence by..."
As far as the rest of the sentence goes, it seems that the transcendent is obviously greater than whatever it is transcending. So, it's unnecessary to state it is both.
ALSO, in the sentence separating the two paragraphs, do
you mean "natural law," when you say "Nature"?
FINALLY, the very last sentence. By heaven, do you mean
the abode of the transcendent, or the state of euphoria?
By "this," do you mean "natural transcendence"? The
"greater than this universe?
Thank you for your response. I edited those the last line, and included Natural Law on the line that just said nature.
As far as wordiness and redundancy. ... Sigh. Sometimes, I say things again just to provide an authorial commentary, to make sure people don't take it the wrong way, (when I see that someone can, or has taken it the wrong way).
As far as wordiness and complexity goes ... I could have just written. ...
"Hey, stuff is born from other stuff, that is different in many ways, why is it unreasonable to believe that nature, this natural universe was born from another, but significantly different as well?"
Unfortunately, the people that think they are really intelligent don't respond well to that ... and, its unnecessary to make it that simple for others who do not claim that intelligence, (they usually have a pretty good handle on the obvious.)
:)
Oh alright, so I am also practicing being mildly poetic and my writing style. :)
Thanks again! I will definitely revisit this and see if I can tighten it up a bit other than the things I already did.
:)
Post a Comment