Eternal Regression and Intelligence

[RevTestament]

On 6/13/2019 at 3:29 AM, Rivers said:

I've been thinking about another Latter-day Saint teaching that doesn't sit will with me.  There's the belief that God the Father had a father. And is His father had a father.  And so on forever backwards.  But I'm not really sure if it is official doctrine or not.  I believe its rooted in Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove shortly before his death. 

According to our other Christian friends, God is the first cause of all things being uncreated and self-existing.  While that is a mind-boggling thing to think about, it makes more sense IMO than the other option of a never-ending backward timeline.  I'm thinking of the theist argument of contingency.  If everything is contingent on something else, there had to be some kind of first cause.  And that first cause is God, or we can at least call it God.  

Our Christian friends argue that our perception of God isn't really God but a very intelligent and powerful extra-terrestrial or angel.  This is one of the major reasons they don't like to consider us Christians.  Our understanding of the very definition of God is very different from theirs.   So part of me finds their view of God to be more within the realm of rationality than our view.  But another part of me prefers our understanding of a corporeal God of passions that is coequal with us.  

Then I got thinking about D&C 93:29  which talks about Intelligence being not created or made.  Is it possible that this uncreated Intelligence was the first cause?  If so we can have our cake and eat it too (never understood that expression).  We can have a theology with a first cause while still having an embodied God that was once a man like us.  If other Christians tell us we don't believe in the same God as them, we can point to D&C 93:29.  Uncreated Intelligence.  That is essentially their view of God.  

 

On 6/13/2019 at 5:45 AM, TOmNossor said:

I generally reject the idea that God the Father had a Heavenly Father.  

Does Christ have a Father?

Isaia 9:6 For unto unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Can the Son become the Father? Isaiah seems to think so, and indeed that is His inheritance - to inherit all the Father hath. Is the Son now our brother or as the scriptures say, our Fellow? The secret is in His begotteness, in which orthodoxy has led man astray by teaching He was never really begotten as the Son, but is eternally begotten instead.

[SettingDogStar]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

Does Christ have a Father?

Isaia 9:6 For unto unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Can the Son become the Father? Isaiah seems to think so, and indeed that is His inheritance - to inherit all the Father hath. Is the Son now our brother or as the scriptures say, our Fellow? The secret is in His begotteness, in which orthodoxy has led man astray by teaching He was never really begotten as the Son, but is eternally begotten instead.

I agree about Christ being the Father and the Son, and that it’s more literal then most people take as. However are you saying that you don’t believe in A Father and Son as separate beings?

Thats totally fine, but I’m curious now.

[Rivers]

On 6/13/2019 at 5:21 PM, pogi said:

I haven’t read or thought much about this contingency doctrine, but at first glance it seems illogical.

If everything (as in EVERYTHING) is contingent on something else, then there could not logically be a first cause because that “first cause” must be “contingent on something else”. 

The idea is that the source of the first  cause is uncreated.  Thus not contingent on anything.  It simply is.  This is how many theists answer the question of God’s origin.  God is uncreated and therefore ontologically different than everything else which is created.  

So either there is some kind of uncreated thing that started the domino effect.   Or it’s just one long line of dominos with no beginning.  Even if you look at the cyclical time theory, the cycle either had a beginning or it did not.  

Both options are difficult to fathom.  

 

[SettingDogStar]

15 minutes ago, Rivers said:

The idea is that the source of the first  cause is uncreated.  Thus not contingent on anything.  It simply is.  This is how many theists answer the question of God’s origin.  God is uncreated and therefore ontologically different than everything else which is created.  

So either there is some kind of uncreated thing that started the domino effect.   Or it’s just one long line of dominos with no beginning.  Even if you look at the cyclical time theory, the cycle either had a beginning or it did not.  

Both options are difficult to fathom.  

 

And both perfectly reasonable. I always liked the cyclical time theory, seemed to fit a lot more reasonably with everything that’s happening.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I agree about Christ being the Father and the Son, and that it’s more literal then most people take as. However are you saying that you don’t believe in A Father and Son as separate beings?

Thats totally fine, but I’m curious now.

Not at all. It is much like the earthly order of things. The son grows up, learns everything of his father, and becomes a father. I don't get why people have such a hard time understanding this. Christ came into this world as the only begotten of His Father. What is He doing here? He is becoming our spiritual Father, by following in the footsteps of the Father, and teaching us everything He saw the Father do. I liken it to being the legal agent of the Father - you speak to Him, and legally, you are speaking to the Father. Yet, He still recognized that the Father was greater than He.  Why? Because the Father was His teacher. He inherits everything the Father hath, only be following the Father. He is not El Elyon, the Most High Power. That title is limited to the Father of this world.

[SettingDogStar]

31 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not at all. It is much like the earthly order of things. The son grows up, learns everything of his father, and becomes a father. I don't get why people have such a hard time understanding this. Christ came into this world as the only begotten of His Father. What is He doing here? He is becoming our spiritual Father, by following in the footsteps of the Father, and teaching us everything He saw the Father do. I liken it to being the legal agent of the Father - you speak to Him, and legally, you are speaking to the Father. Yet, He still recognized that the Father was greater than He.  Why? Because the Father was His teacher. He inherits everything the Father hath, only be following the Father. He is not El Elyon, the Most High Power. That title is limited to the Father of this world.

Oh okay! I totally agree with you there!! I just misunderstood your comment.

[Rivers]

5 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

And both perfectly reasonable. I always liked the cyclical time theory, seemed to fit a lot more reasonably with everything that’s happening.

Cyclical time is the most confusing for me.  Those Terminator movies give me a real headache.

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

Cyclical time is the most confusing for me.  Those Terminator movies give me a real headache.

I accept nothing after T-2 so its not an issue for me 😂

[Rivers]

18 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I accept nothing after T-2 so its not an issue for me 😂

The time loop stuff I have trouble with originates with T1.