[The previous series, 115, can be found [url=https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/jrps-bite-sized-metaphysics-series-115/547/1]here. This series, 116, picks up with the topic arrived at the end of the previous series. An index with links to all parts of the work as they are posted can be found here.]
[Entry 1 for “in question of infinite possibilities”]
In the previous chapter (back toward the end of series 113), I said there were three ways the Final Fact can be (and historically has been) considered to transcend our ability to think about it.
I have already dealt with the first option (way back in series 102): that nothing we say about the IF can be true; and I have explained why I reject this position and any positions built upon it.
The second option is that everything we say about the IF can be (or even is) true.
(An infinite regression proposal might be attempted as grounding for either concept, by the way: that all propositions are ultimately true or that none of them are. In my experience, I’ve seen inf-reg proponents attempt to link it to the former idea more often than the latter, though–maybe because linking it to the latter is too quickly and obviously self-contradictive to their own attempt! If no propositions are ultimately true, then neither is the proposition of an infinite ontological regression.)
This would certainly qualify as a concept we cannot fully fathom; and its adherents often affirm that such claims are even particularly true: i.e., that the IF is not a generality or pure abstraction (although sometimes they go this route, too). Best of all, its adherents can say not only that they are rendering honor to the IF (to whatever extent that may mean), but also that they need not dispute with any other belief. All religions and philosophies are equally true and valuable, they will say: none has preeminence.
On the face of it, this seems like a sensitive, refined, tolerant belief that reduces friction between people. Everyone comes out a winner, hostilities are minimized, and anyone disputing it automatically seems revealed as being necessarily fractious and an enemy to peace. And I admit, insofar as those reasons go, I would very much like for this concept to be true.
But I am certain that it is not.