Please note, Big Bang is not the assertion of a zero-dimensional singularity of infinite density and temperature, nor is it the assertion of a definite earliest moment

According to the Wikipedia article above:

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity and thus, all the laws of physics.

A linked article entitled 'the gravitational singularity' says:

The laws of normal space-time could not exist within a singularity.

What I said was:

That is why, as I understand it, physics can 'rewind the tape' of the Big Bang to within an infinitesmal of the singularity, but never to it - even in principle.

duplicate

Many years ago things were much denser. — jorndoe

I don't think "denser" is the proper word. As I understand it, expansion doesn't affect density. What I think, is that when general relativity is applied to vast areas of space and time, a mystery phenomenon appears, which is called "expansion". But expansion doesn't really exist, as a real phenomenon, it's just the failure of general relativity which produces the appearance of expansion. Then instead of approaching the theory of general relativity to see what it is about that theory which produces the appearance of this mystery phenomenon, scientist would rather just give it a name, "expansion", and work out all the necessary mathematics required to deal with this failure.

According to the Wikipedia article above: — Wayfarer

This paper, for example, is about t=0 and it has 487 citations!

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2848

Here is a review by Luke Barnes, of Sean Carroll's foray into Natural Philosophy, his book The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself.

Luke Barnes is a Sydney-based astrophysicist, who is making a name for himself as a philosopher, as well, notably via a critique of Victor Stenger's arguments against the anthropic cosmological principle here, and a recent New Atlantis contribution, here. All of these pieces are on the same basic idea, and all of them very close to the cosmological arguments.

Again, the problem with the way the cosmological argument is generally conducted is that it reduces the first cause to being the kind of cause that science understands. That is why, for instance, Richard Dawkins main argument against 'a first cause', is that a creator must be more complex and larger than what it creates. (He spells this at length in both The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion.) So if a creator has created the universe, then it must be larger and more complex than the whole universe. This is indeed a truly absurd thing to believe, as there is no evidence of such a vast and complex being - so it's no wonder that Dawkins questions the intelligence of anyone who would believe such an obviously absurd idea.

The problem with the argument, however, is that philosophical theology doesn't propose anything of the kind. The classical depiction of deity in the Western tradition is as simple - not composed of parts - nor with any location or with any magnitude. And as such a being is beginningless and endless, then this being cannot also be something that is said to exist, as all existing things come into, and go out of, existence. But that doesn't mean non-existent, so much as beyond existence, i.e. transcendent.

But then, if you put the argument in those terms, the response is that it is meaningless or absurd, because such a being can't even be imagined. 'Whatever could such a thing be?', will come the response. You might say: 'what are you actually asking, here. If you're enquiring into the 'nature of deity', then what kind of question is it? How would you go about asking it? What would you study?'

But then, you're cut off: you wouldn't study anything, because it is obviously all a charade, a ruse.

That's about the state of play.

This paper, for example, is about t=0 and it has 487 citations!

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2848 — tom

Indeed, there isn't anything stopping us from doing serious research.
Why would there be?
Such research may even be fruitful, who knows.

The classical depiction of deity in the Western tradition is as simple - not composed of parts - — Wayfarer

That claim might be difficult to defend. God is one, but first and foremost, "one" signifies unity rather than simplicity. Surely the Christian God is understood to be a trinity, and I don't see how a trinity could be simple. As a trinity, this being could be the beginning, end, and all in between, rather than the beginningless, endless, existence-less "being" which you speak off.

isn't it more a case of the words are alluding to something considered or believed in, but which is inconceivable to us. So rather, a humble acknowledgement of our cause, even if done in ignorance.

I've read a fair bit of theological material, and I don't see God as that "which is inconceivable to us. I see God as that which is not yet fully conceived, but is yet, in principle conceivable.

I think that designating God as inconceivable, leads to the idea that God is unintelligible, and this leads to the idea that God is incoherent, which leads to the idea that God is logically impossible, contradictory, etc., and this leads to atheism.

So rather, a humble acknowledgement of our cause, even if done in ignorance. — Punshhh

To acknowledge such a cause is to acknowledge intelligibility, and therefore conceivability. Conception should be understood as a process, a process of understanding. One can study, all one's life, trying to understand the mysteries of the universe without ever fully "conceiving", but this does not mean that the individual's efforts were in vain.

That claim might be difficult to defend. God is one, but first and foremost, "one" signifies unity rather than simplicity. Surely the Christian God is understood to be a trinity, and I don't see how a trinity could be simple. — MetaphysicianUndiscovered

The fact that 'you don't see it', doesn't constitute an argument, especially in so recondite a question as this! And I don't want to try and present myself as a Christian apologist, or theologian, either. The point I am labouring to make is that the frequent criticisms directed at classical theism - 'Who made God? Mustn't God be more complex than what he creates?' - are based on no understanding whatever of the nature of the question. Generally the naturalistic attitude is so deeply entrenched in our culture and outlook, that we don't realise we're standing in it, and that it conditions the very way we ask the questions, and indeed the kinds of questions we ask.

And also, from the perspective of depth psychology and comparative religion, the 'divine triad' is represented in more than just Christian doctrine; in Hinduism, the trinity is Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva. In Mahayana Buddhism, the trinity is the 'tri-kaya', or 'three Bodies of the Buddha'. I am not saying these are interchangeable or synonymous, but that the idea of the 'one which is three' is not unique to Christian doctrine to perhaps it denotes a deeper truth.

The point I am labouring to make is that the frequent criticisms directed at classical theism - 'Who made God? Mustn't God be more complex than what he creates?' - are based on no understanding whatever of the nature of the question. — Wayfarer

Well, I must admit that I don't see any logic to this type of criticism, so I generally ignore it, seeing no need to defend against it. It is just a symptom of a much deeper problem, as you correctly point out.

I am not saying these are interchangeable or synonymous, but that the idea of the 'one which is three' is not unique to Christian doctrine to perhaps it denotes a deeper truth. — Wayfarer

I'm with you there. Here's a few explanations of the 'one which is three', which I am acquainted with. Plato had the tripartite soul: mind, body, and he demonstrated the necessity to assume a medium between mind and body, spirit. St. Augustine had the three aspects of the intellect: memory, understanding, and will. Then there is Aquinas' explanation. There is no "son" without a father, and no "father" unless there is a son. And, there is a very real relationship between these two which allows them to be what they are, father and son, and this is the holy spirit. I like to understand time in this way, there is no future without a past, and no past without a future, and there is a very real present which allows these two to be what they are. I believe this is the essence of conception, the two opposing terms, and the necessary relationship between them. That is why the 'one which is three' is a common theme.

I am not saying inconceivable in principle, rather from our humble vantage point. Yes ts true that folk perceive divine beauty, meaning, or perhaps something of the nature of God, but it is always understood that they are relating to an entity far greater, the part of the iceberg you cannot see. It is quite natural therefore to view this entity as understanding, or causing our world with all the consequent philosophical conundrums such as the causeles cause.

As you bring up the triad, I would mention that I use an entire philosophical perspective based on the trinity, which I find to more explanatory power than binary thinking.

So we have;

Father = God = spirit
Mother = Holy Spirit = body
Son = the Christ = mind

This can be applied to just about everything.

I am not saying inconceivable in principle, rather from our humble vantage point. Yes ts true that folk perceive divine beauty, meaning, or perhaps something of the nature of God, but it is always understood that they are relating to an entity far greater, the part of the iceberg you cannot see. — Punshhh

Well, do you recognize the difference between perceiving something and conceiving something? If you do, you can question what lies in between these two, what creates a difference between them, or what is the difference between them. So suppose someone perceives "divine beauty", as you say. This means that the individual is so inclined as to name what is being perceived as "divine beauty". We can ask the person "why did you use 'divine beauty' to describe your perception?".

If the person can justify this use, give reason for using this phrase, we might say that there is a concept of "divine beauty". But very likely the person will be at a lose of words, or meet criticism with any attempt to justify, and we'd have to conclude that there is no conception of "divine beauty". What you would name "divine beauty", is not what I would name "divine beauty". Sure there are some subliminal inclinations which would make you use this phrase, and you might even come up with reasons for using it, but these reasons don't really justify your use, in the minds of others, so we cannot say that there is a concept of divine beauty.

This is what happens with the word "God". We can proceed through any one of a number of different versions of the cosmological argument, and conclude a first actuality, as I suggested, or a causeless cause, as suggested by another version, or even an eternal cause, and claim this is "God". Someone else might say "God" refers to an omnipotent, omniscient, being, so we are wrong to use the word "God" in reference to what is implied by the numerous different conclusions of the different versions of the cosmological argument. If we quit at this point, and concede, "God" is inconceivable, we will have succumbed to the irrationality of "that which is difficult is impossible".

Now it should be evident that we can perceive things, apprehend them with our minds, and even assert that we have conceived, without actually having the capacity to conceptualize them. Conceptualizing is a completely different process from apprehending or understanding. Conception requires that one justifies what one has apprehended, and understood with one's own mind, in the minds of others. So no matter how clear and distinct this idea is to you, unless you can make the same idea clear and distinct in the minds of others, there is no concept.

This is what happens with the word "God". We can proceed through any one of a number of different versions of the cosmological argument, and conclude a first actuality, as I suggested, or a causeless cause, as suggested by another version, or even an eternal cause, and claim this is "God". Someone else might say "God" refers to an omnipotent, omniscient, being, so we are wrong to use the word "God" in reference to what is implied by the numerous different conclusions of the different versions of the cosmological argument. If we quit at this point, and concede, "God" is inconceivable, we will have succumbed to the irrationality of "that which is difficult is impossible". — Metaphysician Undiscovered

I think that in this case you're probably not aware of the nature of apophatic theology, otherwise known as the way of negation. It is not, strictly speaking, a philosophical theory at all, but is associated with contemplative prayer, such as the well-known perennial book called The Cloud of Unknowing which is by an anonymous medieval monastic but is still in wide circulation. But aside from this title, there is an elaborate literature on the 'way of unknowing' which is central to Christian mysticism (and also has parallels in other faith traditions).

The gist of this is not that simply one throws up one's hands - 'eh, what do we know?' - but one enters into the 'cloud of unknowing' through meditative silence. The biblical precedents are such verses as 'the lord sees in secret'. I think, from the viewpoint of a modern depth psychology, what is happening in these meditative states is the mind is actually becoming directly aware of its hidden depths, through non-verbal and non-analytic awareness.

I don't think the apophatic approach is characteristic of the kind of theology that developed such ideas as the cosmological argument, it is considerably more reticent, for obvious reasons (although the inconcievability of the divine nature is basic to Aquinas, as I understand it.) But I think it's a mistake to say that recognition of the 'divine mystery' or the fact that Deity transcends human reason and sense, is simply 'succumbing to the irrational', so much as a recognition of the limits of rationality, in respect of that which is superior to it.

There's a difference between 'supra-rational' and 'irrational', although for obvious reasons a difference which is difficult for naturalism.

Yes it is not as simple as I suggest, it is a big subject. I don't want to defend any cosmological argument, but rather consider what people who take God seriously, or have a belief, or faith in God. In each case the nature of God is both not understood, or regarded as understood, more than in an intuitive sense. Also people who have a belief or faith, seek refuge in Gods mercy at some point, surrendering their sense of absolute control of their person(Thy will be done not mine).

It occurs to me that no one thinks they conceive of God(in the sense of conceivable), or claims to have such knowledge, other than in their humble imperfect mind. This is why I accept that any cosmological argument cannot conclude God, because what is it concluding?

But aside from this title, there is an elaborate literature on the 'way of unknowing' which is central to Christian mysticism (and also has parallels in other faith traditions). — Wayfarer

Perhaps this is an extreme form of skepticism.

The gist of this is not that simply one throws up one's hands - 'eh, what do we know?' - but one enters into the 'cloud of unknowing' through meditative silence. The biblical precedents are such verses as 'the lord sees in secret'. I think, from the viewpoint of a modern depth psychology, what is happening in these meditative states is the mind is actually becoming directly aware of its hidden depths, through non-verbal and non-analytic awareness. — Wayfarer

This would be very useful, especially in today's materialist society. We tend to think that knowledge is "of" the external world, and even that it is caused by the external world, acting on our passive bodies, failing to see that knowledge manifests within us. So taking such a meditative state might allow one to realize that knowledge really comes from inside us.

I don't think the apophatic approach is characteristic of the kind of theology that developed such ideas as the cosmological argument, it is considerably more reticent, for obvious reasons (although the inconcievability of the divine nature is basic to Aquinas, as I understand it.) But I think it's a mistake to say that recognition of the 'divine mystery' or the fact that Deity transcends human reason and sense, is simply 'succumbing to the irrational', so much as a recognition of the limits of rationality, in respect of that which is superior to it. — Wayfarer

Aquinas doesn't say that the divine nature is inconceivable, he says that it can only be grasped through revelation, it must be revealed to an individual. This means that it is given, or it must be given to that individual. But anything that is given needs also to be received, or the gift is in vain. Now, any knowledge which is given to an individual, no matter how it is revealed to the person, must be. in some way, justified by that person before it is accepted, and believed. This is the way of the skeptic, to enforce strict criteria of acceptance, and I believe the whole point in approaching the "cloud of unknowing" is to be found here as well. If we can wipe out all so-called truths, facts, and approach knowing anew, with a clean slate, we can ask that all be justified before being accepted.

So let's assume the revelation, and this being from the perspective of the one who receives the revelation. The revelation must be validated, justified, otherwise it's nature, as understood by the receiver, cannot get beyond the appearance of an hallucination. This is what the cosmological argument does, it validates the revelation as something real, supporting it with sound logic. When an individual receives such a revelation, that person must treat the revelation as a revelation, not as an hallucination. If the latter is the case, and the person treats the revelation as an hallucination, the revelation will be meaningless, dismissed and forgotten about. But if, through the persuasion of the cosmological argument, or some other logical argument, the individual comes to understand the revelation as a true revelation, and so treats it as such, it will not be dismissed and forgotten about. See, it is commonly said that God reveals Himself to all of us. But if we don't take notice, the revelation is meaningless.

But I think it's a mistake to say that recognition of the 'divine mystery' or the fact that Deity transcends human reason and sense, is simply 'succumbing to the irrational', so much as a recognition of the limits of rationality, in respect of that which is superior to it. — Wayfarer

What I characterized as "succumbing to the irrational" was the position of "I cannot conceive of God, therefore God is inconceivable". When we attempt to do something, and fail because it is exceedingly difficult to do that thing, to say "this is impossible" is irrational.

This is why I accept that any cosmological argument cannot conclude God, because what is it concluding? — Punshhh

As I disclosed in my rendition of a cosmological argument a few posts back, what a cosmological argument concludes, is that there is an actuality which is prior to all observable actualities. Prior to any, and every, observable actuality is the potential for that actuality. But it is impossible that potential is prior, in an absolute sense, so there must be an actuality which is prior to all observable actualities. How is this not concluding God?

The point is that in all the Semitic religions - Jewish, Christian, Islamic - the Lord is literally unknowable or inconceivable in some fundamental way. That is why you find in Aquinas discussions of how the descriptions applied to deity - good, great, powerful, and so on - are really analogies, because they're the nearest that the mind can come to those actual attributes. Likewise amongst orthodox theologians, a distinction is made between 'essence' and 'energia' - man is said to know the 'energia', but never the essence. So I'm staying with the inconceivability of the divine, I think that is actually the teaching of classical theology, both Catholic and Orthodox.

Aquinas doesn't say that the divine nature is inconceivable... — Metaphysician Undiscovered

God is greater than all we can say, greater than all that we can know; and not merely does he transcend our language and our knowledge, but he is beyond the comprehension of every mind whatsoever, even of angelic minds. — Aquinas

(De Div. Nom. I.3.77; quoted in Fran O’Rourke, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas, p. 49)

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/st-thomas-aquinas-divine-simplicity-and-knowing-the-unknowable-god/

I agree with your conclusion that there must be an abosolute prior actuality and if for you this has equivalence with your concept of God, then it does conclude God, I agree. But what is this God(what is its nature), do we know, does anyone know?
In the old philosophy forum I started a thread asking "what exists", this was a request to discuss this same absolute prior actuality. But few posters responded, or understood what I was getting at.

I just want to make an observation about revelation here. I have experienced some revelations during my life. So I might be able to convey what is going on here, because it does seem to be a real phenomena, even if the divine reality we imagine and believe in turns out not to be true.

As I see it revelation is an experience which transcends ordinary day to day consciousness. By "transcends", I mean ones self transcends it's normal seat of intellection, of being within the body and has experiences which can be described as a lucid hallucination. An experience or hallucination which in ones sense of self and being within themselves/oneself, is more real, more present, more known than ordinary living experience. So in a real way, one can be lifted up by a divine intervention of some sort and experience something which ones body and mind are not equipped to experience. But you experience it through the body of the intervening deity, are hosted in their body, witness, what they witness. This process enables you to see/witness the inconceivable, inconceivable with our own capacities. Following the revelation you remember what you witnessed, you know what you experienced, but your intellect has to catch up, to give meaning and explanation, but it is always only describing things in its own terms and referring to something beyond, which it can't articulate, convey.

An example which I experienced was that of transcending time. I found myself witnessing a present outside our daily brief moment of time, that we live in, in which I saw my past and my future like viewing a landscape, as I turned to look across the landscape, I was looking across time, not space.

There is no point from which the knowledge of the Infinite can begin, other than the Infinite itself. From the start, we are in the disconcerting position of setting out to understand something which has no beginning, which cannot be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference. This is perhaps inconvenient and confusing, but the truth remains that one cannot work oneself up to the subject of metaphysic by easy stages. A million to the power of a million is no nearer to infinity than is one. ...

[Accordingly], almost without exception the sacred writings begin the exposition of the ultimate Reality without preface, argument, or proof. The modern philosopher will regard this as hopeless prejudice, for to adopt the existence of the Infinite or of God as one's major premise is against every rule of his science. But it cannot be otherwise, for as the reality of light cannot be proved or described in terms of visible shape, the reality of the Infinite cannot be proved in terms of the finite. — Alan Watts

The Supreme Identity, Pp 46-47

An example which I experienced was that of transcending time... — Punshh

there is some sense—easier to feel than to state—in which time is an unimportant and superficial characteristic of reality. Past and future must be acknowledged to be as real as the present, and a certain emancipation from slavery to time is essential to philosophic thought. The importance of time is rather practical than theoretical, rather in relation to our desires than in relation to truth. A truer image of the world, I think, is obtained by picturing things as entering into the stream of time from an eternal world outside, than from a view which regards time as the devouring tyrant of all that is. Both in thought and in feeling, even though time be real, to realise the unimportance of time is the gate of wisdom.

Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic

Thanks for the Russell reference, looks interesting. I have read some Allan Watts a long time ago, I remember that I found it inspiring. I would suggest though that the use of the word "infinite" doesn't seem as appropriate as the use of the word eternity would be, to my eyes.
There are problems with the concept of infinity, which I have pointed out from time to time.

In this matter, no words are really suitable, Watts is trying to use a lexicon which doesn't favour any particular religion. That book, by the way, is an all-time favourite of mine, although admittedly the reasons might be sentimental.

incidentally, I think I mentioned before that I got into University on a passage from that Russell essay. Despite his adamant rejection of Christianity, Russell was surprisingly sympathetic to, and insightful about, mysticism, in my view.

The point is that in all the Semitic religions - Jewish, Christian, Islamic - the Lord is literally unknowable or inconceivable in some fundamental way. — Wayfarer

I was really thinking that you're clearly wrong about this Wayfarer, because God is immaterial, having the type of existence of an intelligible object, so it would be self-defeating, even contradictory or oxymoronic to assume an intelligible object which is unintelligible, inconceivable. So I looked it up in Aquinas' "Summa Theologica".

The subject is covered in Pt. 1, Q12. In the first article, it is said: "Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality is in Himself supremely knowable. But what is supremely knowable in itself, may not be knowable to a particular intellect on account of the excess of the intelligible object above the intellect; as, for example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be seen by the bat by reason of its excess of light."

He proceeds to explain how some hold that no created intellect can see the essence of God, and demonstrates how this opinion is not tenable. Then he explains revelation, and by article 4 says that no created intellect can see the essence of God, unless God, by His grace, unites Himself to the created intellect as an object made intelligible to it. In the 11th article, it is explained that this cannot be obtained by a living human being, because so long as we live, the soul has its being in corporeal matter, so the intellect cannot be united to God in this way, while the human being is living. In the 12th article he says that we know "of God", and explains the different types of things which we know "of Him", that he is creator, etc.. And in the thirteenth, he says that this is assisted by the revelation of grace.

So, I would say that we are both right, in some way. God is understood here, to be inconceivable to corporeal creatures, including human beings, due to the inability of the material being to be properly united to the immaterial essence of God. But in a fundamental way, God is most highly conceivable.

I would suggest though that the use of the word "infinite" doesn't seem as appropriate as the use of the word eternity would be, to my eyes.
There are problems with the concept of infinity, which I have pointed out from time to time. — Punshhh

I agree, we should focus on "eternity" rather than "infinite". This, I pointed to earlier as a fundamental flaw in Craig's version of the cosmological argument, his focus on infinity. Aristotle's original version deals eternity, as does Aquinas'. The point being that the argument deals with the nature of temporal existence. When we understand, from the cosmological argument, that there is necessarily an actuality which is prior to the actualities of temporal existence, this necessitates that time itself is prior to the actualities of temporal existence.

I agree with your conclusion that there must be an abosolute prior actuality and if for you this has equivalence with your concept of God, then it does conclude God, I agree. But what is this God(what is its nature), do we know, does anyone know? — Punshhh

I think that when we approach this question, "what is God?", what is God's nature, or essence, we get deflected off from this, by our inadequate understanding of time. In other words, we cannot even get a first impression of what is God, without first developing an understanding of time. But the nature of time is an extremely difficult question. From my perspective, when I started to develop an understanding of the nature of time, I realized just how little we, as human beings, actually know about temporal existence. If God is what brings us to this realization, then "God" is something which we must maintain.

The point being that the argument deals with the nature of temporal existence. When we understand, from the cosmological argument, that there is necessarily an actuality which is prior to the actualities of temporal existence, this necessitates that time itself is prior to the actualities of temporal existence.

I don't think we can conclude that time is prior to temporal existence, the issue might be more subtle than that. Time external to temporal existence might be orthogonal to it, of another form of existence or an eternal moment of some kind. Even in physics they entertain the idea of events occurring outside time as experienced in our world. There might be an ooze, in which both time and space are distorted/extruded across dimensions.

Anyway when I say "what exists", I am considering a transcendent object, or ooze.

From my perspective, when I started to develop an understanding of the nature of time, I realized just how little we, as human beings, actually know about temporal existence. If God is what brings us to this realization, then "God" is something which we must maintain

Agreed, we are in ignorance. I don't mean in the sense of stupid, but rather that the truth of the matter is concealed/veiled from us.

I think that the term 'object' is being used metaphorically in all of those examples. I don't think Deity is ever really 'an object' in any sense but the metaphorical.

And the fact that the text then goes on to say that this knowledge 'cannot be obtained by a living human being, because so long as we live, the soul has its being in corporeal matter, so the intellect cannot be united to God in this way, while the human being is living', makes the point that I was pressing about 'unknowability'.

But the key thing is the fact that higher knowledge carries with it a change in perspective, meaning that one who has it, sees things so differently, that he or she might as well be seeing a different world altogether. (Maybe this is the inner meaning of 'new heaven, new earth'.) So what we take to be knowledge, from our perspective, really might not be knowledge at all from a higher perspective. ('The things you think are precious I can't understand'.)

Normally, our sense of what we know is embedded in a matrix of understanding, supported and buttressed by all kinds of suppositions and previously-formed ideas. I think that what happens on the path is that this structure is always being challlenged and changed, so that we realise that what we thought we knew, no longer seems certain. Then you come upon a new perspective which throws what you thought you knew into a new light. 'Ah, I thought that this meant that, but now I suddenly see it means something different'. All the things you thought were real and solid, suddenly appear inconsequential.

Notice this passage from Eriugena, which I think I quoted previously, but which is relevant here -

According to the first mode, things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to exist, whereas anything which, ‘through the excellence of its nature’ (per excellentiam suae naturae), transcends our faculties are said not to exist. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to be. He is ‘nothingness through excellence’ (nihil per excellentiam)...

In other words, a particular level may be affirmed to be real by those on a lower or on the same level, but the one above it is thought not to be real in the same way. If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way.

This has a counterpart in the Buddhist koan 'first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is'. That koan is about the shifting perspectives that open up through meditative insight. Venerable Nonin-roshi explains this as follows:

First seeing mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers means seeing them as fixed and solid entities in and of themselves.

Later seeing them as not mountains and not rivers means we understand that neither mountains nor rivers exist in and of themselves, that they are empty of inherent existence and made up of other beings that are also empty of inherent existence. For instance, there is nothing within a mountain that we can pull out and say, "this is mountain," or, "this is what makes a mountain a mountain." Mountains are made up of rocks, trees, grass, snow, water, rivers, ponds, lakes, insects, birds, animals, etc., etc., etc., and all of these things are made up of other things. So, there are no mountains and no rivers.

When we continue to practice, and our wisdom eye is fully opened, we realize that mountains are indeed mountains, and rivers are indeed rivers, for there is a mountain there and a river over here. However, we deeply understand that both "mountain" and "river" are merely words that we use to describe the conditioned phenomena in front of us. Neither phenomena is a fixed nor permanent entity that exists in and of itself and possesses inherent existence as "mountain," or "river." In other words we experience and understand their true nature, and the true nature of all beings.

__//|\\__

I don't think we can conclude that time is prior to temporal existence, the issue might be more subtle than that. — Punshhh

I think there are many different ways to interpret, so when thinking about time, it's good not to really "conclude" anything. This is a big part of that "inconceivability" factor.

Time external to temporal existence might be orthogonal to it, of another form of existence or an eternal moment of some kind. Even in physics they entertain the idea of events occurring outside time as experienced in our world. There might be an ooze, in which both time and space are distorted/extruded across dimensions. — Punshhh

Aquinas uses a term, which others prior to his time had already used, "aeviternal". This is described as a partial eternity, and it is used to account for the type of existence which angels have.

I understand it like this. We can look two directions in time, past and future. If we assume infinite distance, in either direction, a firm of eternity is implied. So we have two distinct potential eternities here, backwards and forwards in time. Angels were believed to have been created in time. However, they were believed to potentially exist forever, immortal, eternal existence, in that forward direction. Having been created in time (generated), the angel should also be corruptible.

Proper "eternity" as defined by the cosmological argument is actual, so the potential for future existence cannot be proper to eternity, there must be actual future existence. This places "the eternal" as outside of time, because it cannot partake in the passing of time whatsoever, or else it would partake in the potential which is proper to "the future", in the passing of time.

Now we can look at time itself, and describe the two parts of time in distinct ways. The past is time which has already occurred, so it has actual existence, and the future has not yet occurred, and due to contingency, the time of the future is potential time. The eternal is an actuality which has been, and forever will be, on the future side of the present, it can never cross that boundary into being something which has actually occurred, because this would put it into the temporal, when it must be purely, and absolutely atemporal. This is why it can never be a physical existent, nor can it ever be empirically "observed", because observation is of things passing into the past. . So while we relate to the things of the future as potentialities, as things which have not yet occurred, the eternal is a necessary actuality, in the future, but it is something which will never actually occur, because this would negate its essence as eternal.

The aeviternal, angels, are necessary to account for the common materialist, or physicalist argument that the eternal cannot interact with the temporal. The angels have providence over the created, temporal world. Being created as immaterial, the essence of their existence is as an actuality, in the future, just like the eternal, but these are like Neo-Platonic Forms, having been created, therefore not truly eternal, their existence as a future actuality, is limited by their manifestation within the temporal world of the past. In other words, the angels share their actuality between future and past, such that they are not truly eternal, (outside of time), but since they have an actuality on the future side of the present, they partake in the realm of the eternal.

I think that the term 'object' is being used metaphorically in all of those examples. I don't think Deity is ever really 'an object' in any sense but the metaphorical. — Wayfarer

First and foremost, an object is a unity, this is described in your passage from Nonin-roshi. We see things as objects, unities, but it is our perceptual system which presents us with the unities which we see. You might see a mountain, while another might see numerous rocks, and trees and such. We see a river, we don't see a bunch of individual molecules interacting. Our perceptual systems in some sense "choose" which unities will be present to our minds, as individual objects.

At a second level, we create intelligible objects, ideas, and concepts. These are also unities, but the elements which are brought together in union, to produce these, are deep within the soul, and not well understood. The intelligible objects are no less objects than the phenomenal objects, because both are created within the mind of the living being and both are unities..

But if we turn back to the external world now, the mountains, rivers, trees, and such things are really out there, there is something real about them which makes us perceive them as the objects which we do instead of as something else. This is the form. But the form is intelligible only, so it is the intelligible aspect of the external, physical world, which causes us to perceive, through sensation, the unities which we do. Now the unity of the physical, material, objects, the mountains etc., which we assume to exist as objects, has been reduced to an intelligible object, a Form, like an idea, or concept. Since an object is first and foremost a unity, and a unity is an intelligible object, or Form, then it is very consistent to refer to the Deity, which is an immaterial Form, as an object. This is why the Deity is sometimes referred to as the One.

And the fact that the text then goes on to say that this knowledge 'cannot be obtained by a living human being, because so long as we live, the soul has its being in corporeal matter, so the intellect cannot be united to God in this way, while the human being is living', makes the point that I was pressing about 'unknowability'. — Wayfarer

But the point which I was making is also made here as well. This is not "unknowable" in any absolute sense. The "unknowability" is due to a deficiency in the particular intellect which is attempting to know, not due to the Deity itself being unknowable. The Deity is actually supremely knowable. So for example, if you tried to teach advanced mathematics to dogs, and found that the dogs could not learn this math, you might conclude that advanced mathematics is unknowable. But this is not really the case. What is really the case is that the intellects of the dogs are not capable of knowing the advanced math, but the advanced math is still very knowable. So we have the same situation between human beings and God, the human beings are incapable of knowing God, but this does not make God unknowable, God is still highly knowable, but the human intellect is deficient

But the key thing is the fact that higher knowledge carries with it a change in perspective, meaning that one who has it, sees things so differently, that he or she might as well be seeing a different world altogether. (Maybe this is the inner meaning of 'new heaven, new earth'.) So what we take to be knowledge, from our perspective, really might not be knowledge at all from a higher perspective. ('The things you think are precious I can't understand'.)

Normally, our sense of what we know is embedded in a matrix of understanding, supported and buttressed by all kinds of suppositions and previously-formed ideas. I think that what happens on the path is that this structure is always being challlenged and changed, so that we realise that what we thought we knew, no longer seems certain. Then you come upon a new perspective which throws what you thought you knew into a new light. 'Ah, I thought that this meant that, but now I suddenly see it means something different'. All the things you thought were real and solid, suddenly appear inconsequential. — Wayfarer

Yes, I agree, I think this is exactly the key point. Knowledge evolves, and as we make advancements, our perspective naturally changes along with those changes. So something which is currently unknowable, due to our limited perspective, might in the future become knowable from a new perspective. And something which we thought we knew in the past might prove to be false.

And, the problem of false knowledge is very real, and much more difficult and complex to deal with than simply an advancing perspective. The false knowledge must be expelled, and it isn't necessarily expelled by replacing it with new knowledge, because sometimes it is deeply entrenched. This we can see with ancient cosmology and astrology. The problem is that the false knowledge works for making predictions, but it does not provide an understanding of the phenomena being predicted. Since it works, it becomes pervasive. Remember, Thales predicted a solar eclipse, but the proper orbits of the solar system were not understood. Such deeply entrenched, pervasive false knowledge must be expelled and completely forgotten about, because it is so highly distracting to the pursuit of advanced principles.

This is not "unknowable" in any absolute sense. The "unknowability" is due to a deficiency in the particular intellect which is attempting to know, not due to the Deity itself being unknowable. The Deity is actually supremely knowable... — Metaphysician Undiscovered

...for one willing to die for it!

This is really a discussion about the nature of knowledge. I think there is a distinction to be made between 'mundane knowledge' and 'supramundane insight'. That is not something peculiar to Christian philosophy, either, which is why I brought in Ven. Nonin. The Buddhist philosophy of 'two truths', conventional and mundane, echoes the same understanding you find in Eriugena. Alas, by the late Middle Ages, I think that 'perspectival' insight was to become lost; hence much of our current perplexity.

We notice that positivism as a paradigmatic mode, wishes to limit all discussion to provable propositions. Verificationism, they call it. But during subsequent debates, it became clear that 'the principle of verificationism' could not by verified by it's own criterion! My delightful philosophy professor, David Stove, used to compare positivism to the Uroboros, the snake that consumes itself. 'The hardest thing', he would say, 'is the last bite!'

That article I pointed to above is really worth perusing, if you haven't done so. It is on the blog of a self-described 'eclectic orthodox theologian', Father Aiden Kimel, whose essays I am sure you would like. The post in question enlarges on this question of the nature of knowledge in respect of the Divine:

The Angelic Doctor may well be...the most agnostic theologian in the Western Christian tradition—not agnostic in the sense of doubting whether God exists, but agnostic in the sense of being quite clear and certain that God is a mystery beyond any understanding we can have” (Faith Within Reason, McCabe, p. 96). Yet despite our incomprehension, we talk about God all the time. Here is one of the oddities of our liturgical and theological discourse: we do not know what the word “God” means. We have a well enough grasp of the grammatical rules for intelligible use of the term (even militant atheists know how to use it in a sentence), but Christians standing within the Catholic tradition readily admit their ignorance of its referent. Writes McCabe: “For we do not know what we mean by ‘God’. We use this word just as a convenient label for something we do not understand. For Aquinas, only God understands what God is” (p. 97). Even divine revelation, insists Aquinas, does not give us to apprehend God in his essential reality but “joins us to know him as if to an unknown” (ST I.12.13).

I find echoes of that in the Taoist 'he that knows it, knows it not'. And actually, it's really not mysterious! Because what all that is about, is 'awakening to the heart', which means become aware of what is usually ignored, which can only be known in meditation. But even when you know it, you don't know it.

But I do find points of agreement with the above.

I have been looking into Herbert McCabe, noted above, who seems an estimable philosopher of religion. In his Wikipedia entry:

McCabe's sermons were carefully prepared and delivered with great intelligence and wit. A major theme was a caution against making God a god, of reducing the Creator to an object within this world, and thus committing idolatry.

With which I can only agree. I have often said, I don't believe in a God.