58 replies to this topic

[mfbukowski]

inquiringmind, on 27 April 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

If you had no idea what he was talking about, weren't you baffled?

I don't want to argue with you about stupid stuff. It's a misunderstanding.

The John Taylor quote bears out, imo, what I said earlier about multiple eternities.

Talk about "first causes" does not make sense and hasn't since Hume showed the flaw in that argument in the 18th century.
http://en.wikipedia....ogical_argument

[David T]

splendidsun, on 27 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Joseph Smith taught that spirits were never created or made (Abraham 3; KFD; various other sermons).  After his death several church leaders began to teach that spirits were created by a sexual union of exalted beings from spirit matter.  BH Roberts at the end of the 19th century was reading JS and seeing the tension invented the tripartite model, where sensient beings called "intelligences" or "intelligencies" recieved a spirit body before mortality by some sort of spirit birth.  Most general authorities disregarded his ideas, but he got some traction with Widtsoe and they were later popularized by Truman Madsen.  See here.

I don't think enough saw this above post, and the links associated with it. I highly recommend checking it out.

[mfbukowski]

blackstrap, on 27 April 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

In the PoGP there appears to be a hiarchy of intelligence levels with Christ(God/?) at the top. I have a problem with God taking a bunch of primorial intelligence soup and stuffing it into a spirit body with different amounts in each body.I am happier with an eternally existing amount of intelligence that was given a form in which to dwell.

No more soup for you!

Edited by mfbukowski, 28 April 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[inquiringmind]

mfbukowski, on 28 April 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

I don't want to argue with you about stupid stuff. It's a misunderstanding.

The John Taylor quote bears out, imo, what I said earlier about multiple eternities.

I think it bears that out too, which is why I was confused when you said that you "frankly" had "no idea" what he was talking about.

mfbukowski, on 28 April 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Talk about "first causes" does not make sense and hasn't since Hume showed the flaw in that argument in the 18th century.
http://en.wikipedia....ogical_argument

Talk of an (ontologically) First Cause still makes sense to me.

(And it made sense to Lehi, who said "...if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.")

Quote

A version of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

• Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
  
• A causal loop cannot exist.
  
• A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
  
• Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation





One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.¹³ A brief review of the first premise in both arguments above, however, shows that the first cause is exempt precisely because it did not begin to exist or because it is not contingent or finite. Thus claiming that there is special pleading on the part of the first cause essentially amounts to a rejection of the formulation of either of the first premises above. The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.¹⁴Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.¹⁵ Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.¹³ Christian apologist Timothy McCabe has argued that the premise of causality rests on the law of identity: if things begin uncaused, then having nothing and adding nothing to it, something results, which is equivalent to the claim that 0 + 0 > 0, or that zero is not zero.16

This is found on the link you provided, and I fail to see how Hume proved anything.

Edited by inquiringmind, 28 April 2012 - 12:19 PM.

[mfbukowski]

inquiringmind, on 28 April 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

This is found on the link you provided, and I fail to see how Hume proved anything.

McCabe's point assumes from the beginning that there was "nothing"- I cannot even imagine non-existence- can you? No dark- no light, no things, no thoughts, no one observing what is not there. We can't even imagine it.

If there was never "nothing" - "0" he has no case.  Zero is a mathematical concept which enables computation- it doesn't nor has it ever "existed".   It is not a thing.  It is not even no-thing- because that implies the negation of "things" which is a concept- ie something.

It's just all jibberish- that's my point.

The very idea of "zero" is an idea.

Hume:
http://plato.stanfor...e/#NecConDefCau

Incidentally your comment that perhaps the person who is perhaps the most universally accepted as  the most important philosopher to ever write in English didn't "provide anything", is a little....... mistaken.

His arguments against causation are still debated 300 years later.   First Cause may make sense to you, but I think you should be aware that you have an uphill battle on that one against anyone who has not attended philosophy courses taught by Christian Scholastic professors.

Edited by mfbukowski, 28 April 2012 - 12:46 PM.

[inquiringmind]

Quote

I cannot even imagine non-existence- can you?

Can you imagine consciously existing forever before you were born as a spirit child of Heavenly Father?

Did anything change when you were given a spirit body?

Are you any different now that you have a mortal body?

Will you be any different when you get your resurrected body (and will that change be permanent)?

If time had no beginning, how long did it take for you to get where you are?

And how would you answer these questions (which seem to have been raised by General Authorities)?

Quote

There were at least six objections and questions raised regarding what Nelson and Elder Roberts had written, and Elder Roberts summarized them as follows. One, “The pre-existence of the spirit of man is now extended back beyond the ‘beginning’that is so often” taught in the scriptures, and includes “the doctrine that we are co-eternal with the Father.” Two, why are we “so far behind in the order of eternal progression, if . . . we . . . started from the same plane of intelligence as he did?” Three, “the Manual doctrine of immortality must lead to the idea that the number of intelligences that could eventually become . . . human beings, must be limited, that is, all that can ever come into existence as human beings already exist, and have always existed, and when they have all concluded . . . to progress by obeying law, then there will be an end to creation; to the works (new works) of God.” It could have been added that you could take the position that there would always be intelligence because they were infinite in number; therefore, some would never have the opportunity to be begotten spiritually and eventually become like their Heavenly Father. Four, “‘I don’t know,’ says the objector, ‘how the fact that our mortal bodies, which most certainly had a beginning as bodies, will be made immortal and have no end as bodies, can be made to harmonize with [the] axiom,’ that anything that has a beginning must have an end.” Five, “If an individual cannot be produced without the union of two other separate individuals, I do not see how we can deny the beginning of the begotten individual.” And six, “It is tentatively suggested as a counter theory … ‘that the life of the parent is imparted to the offspring, and that while it is still a part of the same life or spirit of the parent, and as such did not have a beginning at the time of birth, yet as a separate individual it did have a beginning at the time of birth or conception.’ This is thought to be a solution of spirit existence ‘both reasonable, and more in accordance with the apparent, plain meaning of many passages both of ancient and modern scripture’” (“Immortality of Man” 403–05).

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...y-saint-thought

Edited by inquiringmind, 28 April 2012 - 12:58 PM.

[mfbukowski]

inquiringmind, on 28 April 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

And how would you answer these questions (which seem to have been raised by General Authorities)?

Is this addressed to anyone in particular?

Edit:   My answer would be that the questions themselves are confused and unclear because the terms are not defined fully.

Edited by mfbukowski, 28 April 2012 - 12:53 PM.

[altersteve]

inquiringmind, on 28 April 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

Can you imagine consciously existing forever before you were born as a spirit child of Heavenly Father?

It's not something we can comprehend, so my answer is no.

[inquiringmind]

altersteve, on 28 April 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

It's not something we can comprehend, so my answer is no.

But if time always existed, and you always existed, you were forever getting where you are now.

How did you get here?

Why aren't you still back in that infinity of time before you had a Heavenly Father?

An atheist could ask much the same question about how God got to the point of creation, but if you believe in a dipolar God (who's both temporal and atemporal) who creates time, there was no infinity of time before creation.

This is only a problem if you believe time and space are eternal and uncreated, and it's a bigger problem if you believe that you are.

If you existed for an infinite amount of time before you became Heavenly Father's spirit child, and you were aware of that passage of time, your mind must have been infinite, but now you can't even conceive of infinity.

Edited by inquiringmind, 28 April 2012 - 01:16 PM.

[altersteve]

inquiringmind, on 28 April 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

But if time always existed, and you always existed, you were forever getting where you are now.

How did you get here?

Why aren't you still back in that infinity of time before you had a Heavenly Father?

An atheist could ask much the same question about how God got to the point of creation, but if you believe in a dipolar God (who's both temporal and atemporal) who creates time, there was no infinity of time before creation.

(This is only a problem if you believe time and space are eternal and uncreated.)

I don't know. Only God can know the answer, but I don't believe we currently have the ability to comprehend it. All I know is that we have always existed in some form, and I'm content with simply saying "I have no idea" when asked how or why.

Also, I don't believe there was ever a time when God was not my Heavenly Father.

Edited by altersteve, 28 April 2012 - 01:14 PM.

[inquiringmind]

altersteve, on 28 April 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

I don't know. Only God can know the answer, but I don't believe we currently have the ability to comprehend it.In fact

But you're as temporally infinite and uncreated as He is.

If you existed for an infinite amount of time before you had a spirit body, and you were aware of that passage of time, your mind must have been infinite, but now you can't even conceive of infinity.

In fact, by all the rules of logic and language, the idea that you were waiting fore something forever, and then got it, seems like a contradiction in terms, doesn't it?

Did God organize man to be totally illogical?

Was your mind designed to lie to you?

Quote

Also, I don't believe there was ever a time when God was not my Heavenly Father.

Then you don't believe you became a spirit child of Heavenly Father at some point in time?

Are you saying that we're all eternally (atemporally, timelessly) generated Children of God?

I won't argue that point, but then you don't believe that the cause always has to proceed the effect (or that we existed as individual intelligences before we were spirit children.)

Edited by inquiringmind, 28 April 2012 - 01:36 PM.

[altersteve]

inquiringmind,

Remember, we are sinners (living in a fallen state) and when we were born on this earth, we passed through the veil, which made us completely forget everything that we saw, heard, and experienced in the pre-mortal existence. The fact that we are unable to completely comprehend these concepts is not "illogical" at all.

[inquiringmind]

altersteve, on 28 April 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

inquiringmind,

Remember, we are sinners (living in a fallen state) and when we were born on this earth, we passed through the veil, which made us completely forget everything that we saw, heard, and experienced in the pre-mortal existence. The fact that we are unable to completely comprehend these concepts is not "illogical" at all.

Wouldn't it take an infinite mind to comprehend infinity?

If you believe you've had an infinite past, and were able to comprehend it before you got here, aren't you saying that you had an infinite mind before you got here?

Also, if you forgot who and what you were, doesn't that amount to (at least a temporary) loss of identity?

How can you say your own individual identity is eternal of you lost it just by coming here?

(And aren't you really saying it's all just a mystery?)

[David T]

If we're getting technical, given what is know, it makes much more sense to me to speak of a time before we were 'adopted' as a child of God than of a time before we were 'born' as a child of God.

The scriptures present that we're adopted through covenant as the seed of Christ.
The scriptures present that we're adopted through covenant as the seed of Aaron and Moses.
The scriptures present that we're  adopted through covenant as the seed of Abraham.
Paul speaks of those who aligned with the gospel under his ministration as his children.

While the 'born again' term is used, it is understood in the context of becoming (or awakening to one's status as) a new Covenant Child.

We're so used to saying 'literally a child of God' that it is not often recognized that literally does not exclusively mean biologically.
If I adopt a son, that child would literally be my child. I would literally be his Father. He would not be my biological offspring, and I would not be his biological father but he would, very literally, be my child.

I believe I am literally a child of God, and that he is literally my Father. The significance and meaning  of this declaration, however, for me, goes far beyond just an assertion that my spirit body is the result of Celestial Reproduction.

Edited by David T, 28 April 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[inquiringmind]

Thank you David.

And do you believe that you literally existed, as an individual, for an infinite amount of time before you were adopted?

[altersteve]

inquiringmind, on 28 April 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Wouldn't it take an infinite mind to comprehend infinity?

The term "infinite mind" is a bit meaningless to me.

Quote

If you believe you've had an infinite past, and were able to comprehend it before you got here, aren't you saying that you had an infinite mind before you got here?

Who says we were able to comprehend it? I'm not saying we couldn't, but you're kind of putting words in my mouth here.

Quote

Also, if you forgot who and what you were, doesn't that amount to (at least a temporary) loss of identity?

No. Your identity is that you are a child of a loving Heavenly Father. This was never lost, whether you understand that it's your identity or not. A "loss of identity" would amount to becoming someone completely different. But you have always been the same person. You have always been you, and that's never changed, nor will it.

Quote

How can you say your own individual identity is eternal of you lost it just by coming here?

I never did say that. See above.

Quote

(And aren't you really saying it's all just a mystery?)

For now, yes, it's a "mystery." But it's not "just" a mystery. It's far more than that.

You seem to be thinking in a very linear fashion, and thus overlooking several aspects of the concept of "eternity." You need to understand that with eternity, and from God's perspective, it's probably not linear at all. God sees things from a whole different plane of existence than we do, so trying to understand all of it by asking all these questions (and making up terms like "infinite mind") doesn't get anyone anywhere. God has revealed everything that He wants us to know for now, and that's what I'm content with knowing. I'd like to know more, but that's one of the exciting things of this life -- recognizing that there are things out there that we don't and can't know (for now). The details of exaltation, eternity, and our pre-existence are some examples. Fortunately, the Lord has promised that the answers to all these "mysteries" will one day be revealed.

[inquiringmind]

Quote

You seem to be thinking in a very linear fashion, and thus overlooking several aspects of the concept of "eternity." You need to understand that with eternity, and from God's perspective, it's probably not linear at all

Are you saying that linear time could be part of creation?

Quote

The term "infinite mind" is a bit meaningless to me.

If linear time has always existed, and you have always existed, seven billion years wouldn't be a fraction of your past.

A trillion, a quadrillion wouldn't make a dent.

It would take a big mind to comprehend the last five or ten thousand years of human history, but your past would be infinite. and it would take an infinite mind to comprehend it.

Quote

You seem to be thinking in a very linear fashion, and thus overlooking several aspects of the concept of "eternity." You need to understand that with eternity, and from God's perspective, it's probably not linear at all

So you're suggesting that linear time is finite?

Would you also suggest that God generates it (or would you be more inclined to think that all of us uncreated intelligences generate it)?

Edited by inquiringmind, 28 April 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[altersteve]

inquiringmind, on 28 April 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Are you saying that linear time could be part of creation?

I'm not sure what you mean, and I don't see the relation between creation and what we're talking about.

Actually, I think I understand what you're asking. If I'm understanding your question correctly, then yes. But feel free to clarify so I can know for sure.

Edited by altersteve, 28 April 2012 - 02:15 PM.

[mfbukowski]

David T, on 28 April 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

If we're getting technical, given what is know, it makes much more sense to me to speak of a time before we were 'adopted' as a child of God than of a time before we were 'born' as a child of God.

The scriptures present that we're adopted through covenant as the seed of Christ.
The scriptures present that we're adopted through covenant as the seed of Aaron and Moses.
The scriptures present that we're  adopted through covenant as the seed of Abraham.
Paul speaks of those who aligned with the gospel under his ministration as his children.

While the 'born again' term is used, it is understood in the context of becoming (or awakening to one's status as) a new Covenant Child.

We're so used to saying 'literally a child of God' that it is not often recognized that literally does not exclusively mean biologically.
If I adopt a son, that child would literally be my child. I would literally be his Father. He would not be my biological offspring, and I would not be his biological father but he would, very literally, be my child.

I believe I am literally a child of God, and that he is literally my Father. The significance and meaning  of this declaration, however, for me, goes far beyond just an assertion that my spirit body is the result of Celestial Reproduction.

I like it.

A lot.  

This also has some implications for the initiatory ordinances symbolizing the pre-existence but of course we can't go there I guess.

You might want to check this out if you haven't:
http://mfbukowski.wo...n-gnostic-text/

Edited by mfbukowski, 28 April 2012 - 07:27 PM.