Logical Order vs. Deliberative Order

[John Bauer]

You have not shown how they are necessarily distinct.

Yes, I have—and I just did it again.

That you draw a distinction does not make them distinct.

I have presented both lexical and logical evidence for why I draw this distinction.

"Order" need not mean "structure". To me, "order" and "sequence" are interchangeable.

As I said, not every order is a sequence (which means they can’t be interchangeable).

Logical and sequential are not the only two kinds of order. There is also ontological (e.g., Creator and creature), causal (e.g., push and move), hierarchical (e.g., authority and subordinate), spatial (e.g., inside and outside), moral (e.g., better and worse), and so on. Thus, order and sequence are not interchangeable terms because sequence is only one kind of order.

The distinction is not, in my view, valid, so I don't concede the argument.

So you assert—without any argument or a shred of evidence, not even so much as a dictionary. Literally nothing.

I am okay with the contrast between that and my argument.

This sounds to me like you are saying, "My argument is based on the distinction, therefore you should admit my argument is sound."

I have no idea how you managed to draw that inference. But no, I am saying, “My argument is based on this distinction, therefore you must accept and reckon with that distinction when critiquing my argument.” Asserting or restating your view does not demonstrate a problem in mine.

Your argument is not sound if there is no distinction.

That is a monstrously large “if.” To make that case—that there is no distinction—you will need to do a lot more than merely claim they are interchangeable. It requires an argument grounded in evidence, not a bare assertion or sharing how you happen to use the words.

I hope you realize we are arguing about words.

No, we are arguing about categories.

I had not hoped to regenerate the contention.

Every time I employ the distinction in a thread, you interject with this argument. Of course that regenerates the contention. It is not as if I am going to ignore your counter.

My thesis here has not been shaken, but to me it was not an important point …

When you tell someone they are wrong, that isn’t important?

… [T]o your thinking, the decree and what was decreed were one and the same.

False. The decree is one. The things decreed are many. Ergo, they can’t be the same thing.

That is not quite a fair accusation.

Which part was unfair?

Here, again, is what I said: “You are erasing the very distinction under debate, recasting my position without it, and then arguing against the rewrite instead of my actual position.”

If you think any part of that is unfair, then identify it specifically. I will point to the relevant places in our discussion, and you can show me where you think I have misunderstood you.

 

[makesends]

That we live and experience time-passage, and speak in temporal terms, does not mean that time is The Way of Things. When I consider the solid reality of the eternal, this few thousand, or billion, years is almost meaningless by comparison—a mere dot on the canvas of eternity.

Within causation, there is a 'becoming' that is not by definition temporal. When we are in our final state, we obviously became that person, being, state. Yet there is no need to define anything there according to time passage or temporal sequence. Rather obviously, we are caused to exist, and not, in the sense that God is self-existent, eternally existing.

Not that the science community's statements aren't outrageous sounding, of the last many years, (but they stick to their guns!), but they insist there is something valid to the notion that all events and all times simultaneously exist. To my mind that must be closer to what God sees than we do. I think he spoke the final product into completion, and we are not there yet. But to him, that final state is what we are.

Yet, admittedly, eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor mind imagined, what God has in store for us.

 

[makesends]

Yes, I have—and I just did it again.



I have presented both lexical and logical evidence for why I draw this distinction.



As I said, not every order is a sequence (which means they can’t be interchangeable).

Logical and sequential are not the only two kinds of order. There is also ontological (e.g., Creator and creature), causal (e.g., push and move), hierarchical (e.g., authority and subordinate), spatial (e.g., inside and outside), moral (e.g., better and worse), and so on. Thus, order and sequence are not interchangeable terms because sequence is only one kind of order.



So you assert—without any argument or a shred of evidence, not even so much as a dictionary. Literally nothing.

I am okay with the contrast between that and my argument.



I have no idea how you managed to draw that inference. But no, I am saying, “My argument is based on this distinction, therefore you must accept and reckon with that distinction when critiquing my argument.” Asserting or restating your view does not demonstrate a problem in mine.



That is a monstrously large “if.” To make that case—that there is no distinction—you will need to do a lot more than merely claim they are interchangeable. It requires an argument grounded in evidence, not a bare assertion or sharing how you happen to use the words.



No, we are arguing about categories.



Every time I employ the distinction in a thread, you interject with this argument. Of course that regenerates the contention. It is not as if I am going to ignore your counter.



When you tell someone they are wrong, that isn’t important?



False. The decree is one. The things decreed are many. Ergo, they can’t be the same thing.



Which part was unfair?

Here, again, is what I said: “You are erasing the very distinction under debate, recasting my position without it, and then arguing against the rewrite instead of my actual position.”

If you think any part of that is unfair, then identify it specifically. I will point to the relevant places in our discussion, and you can show me where you think I have misunderstood you.

Let me restate, but with a difference: I need to stop at this point. It is getting contentious for me, and that doesn't help anything, here. To me, this has become arguing about something unimportant, and getting frustrated unnecessarily, between brothers. I will rejoin when and if I can do so without emotional frustration.

 

[John Bauer]

That we live and experience time-passage, and speak in temporal terms, does not mean that time is The Way of Things. When I consider the solid reality of the eternal, this few thousand, or billion, years is almost meaningless by comparison—a mere dot on the canvas of eternity.

Within causation, there is a 'becoming' that is not by definition temporal. When we are in our final state, we obviously became that person, being, state. Yet there is no need to define anything there according to time passage or temporal sequence. Rather obviously, we are caused to exist, and not, in the sense that God is self-existent, eternally existing.

Not that the science community's statements aren't outrageous sounding, of the last many years, (but they stick to their guns!), but they insist there is something valid to the notion that all events and all times simultaneously exist. To my mind that must be closer to what God sees than we do. I think he spoke the final product into completion, and we are not there yet. But to him, that final state is what we are.

Yet, admittedly, eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor mind imagined, what God has in store for us.

He is making several moves at once, and they do not cohere. I will concentrate on just one.

He shifts from the trivial point that our experience of time is limited to the much stronger claim that time is therefore not fundamental to created reality. But that doesn’t follow. By saying that God transcends our mode of temporality, or that created history is negligible in comparison with eternity—and I don’t dispute either point—he has not shown that becoming is non-temporal. Case in point: God’s simultaneous knowledge of the end does not erase the real sequence by which creatures move toward that end.

 

[John Bauer]

At this point, my claim stands unrefuted, a claim backed up with lexical and logical evidence:

1. “God’s decree cannot be temporally ordered.”
   
   ​
   • TRUE—because the divine nature is not temporally conditioned, thus his knowledge is archetypal and non-discursive.
   ​
2. “God’s decree cannot be logically ordered.”
   
   ​
   • FALSE—because the elements thereof stand in relations of entailment or presupposition, and such relations are logical by definition.
     
     ​
   • THEREFORE, God’s decree can be logically ordered.
   ​
3. “Logical order and logical sequence are interchangeable terms.”
   
   ​
   • FALSE—because while every sequence is an order, not every order is a sequence (e.g., spatial doesn’t necessarily imply sequential).
     
     ​
   • THEREFORE, logical order and logical sequence are not interchangeable terms.

Furthermore: To logically order the things of X

• does not imply that those things are sequential.
  
  ​
• does not imply that there is more than one X.

My interlocutor has said

• that he disagrees—but he won’t say why.
  
  ​
• that “order” and “sequence” are interchangeable terms—but he won’t cite any sources for that, not even a dictionary.
  
  ​
• that I am wrong—but he won’t say how, other than my view contradicts his.

The reason my interlocutor denies that God’s decree can be logically ordered is that, in this case, he is treating order as if it means sequence, so that for him logical order would imply a discursive decree. I share his opposition to any view that would compromise divine simplicity and aseity, but the whole problem disappears the moment he stops conflating order and sequence. He has not shown that the two terms are interchangeable; he has only asserted it. And once it is granted that these are not interchangeable terms, he must concede that God’s decree can be logically ordered, which means he would have to instead say that God’s decree is not logically ordered—which is a separate argument with a difficult burden of proof.