Cosmological argument vs. LDS infinite regress

[ERayR]

Mudcat: As to what caused God to cause us after an infinity of non causality. I think he did it himself.

I am not sure whose quote this is but there is an invalid asumption incorporated in it. LDS thought teaches that there was not an infinity of non causality. That God is continously creating at different points of infinity. That his work in itself is infinite. Again first cause has no meaning in infinity taken as a whole. It only has meaning when you select a point in infinity.

quote name='Vance' date='20 August 2009 - 10:19 AM' timestamp='1250785171' post='1208707479']

Nice speculation but it is really just a bunch of hand waving, because we are back to my original issue.

So what changed to cause God to change Himself? And what caused that change? Or in other words what is the real first cause?

[Mudcat]

Yes, there really is a Problem of Evil.

Assuming you accept the traditional, classical assertions about the nature of God, including that He is absolutely omniscient, then we must necessarily live in a deterministic universe.

1. God is omniscient in an absolute sense.

2. Since 1., God infallibly knows the outcome of all our future decisions.

3. Since 1., our universe is deterministic.

4. Since 3., the outcome of all our decisions is determined by the initial conditions of the universe coupled with whatever actions are taken by causative agents (God) outside the universe which have an effect on our universe.

5. God is the only casual agent outside our universe having a causative effect on it.

6. God is absolute First Cause.

7. Since 4., 5. and 6., God determines the outcome of all our decisions.

8. We decide to do evil.

9. Since 7. and 8., God determines that the evil we do exists.

10. God is responsible for the evil we do.

I don't know that this would exactly how I would have stated it, but I don't see anything jumping out at me in blaring contradiction. It seems that because of point 10. you believe that this is a problem of evil. I guess a lot of people see this in the same manner, because it seems to be discussed quite a bit.

In my mind, I don't see how God being responsible for the evil we do as a problem. You could just as easily insert "good" in the place of "evil" and I suppose we would have to deal with the PoG. I suppose as I see it, it seems apparent that evil must exist for God to achieve his will.

The typical theodicy argues that free will requires that we choose evil in some cases. Why?

Because the theodicy is built around the existence of God and our attempts to harmonize his existence with the status quo.

Do beings in heaven possess free will?

Dunno... if you mean angels.

Does the perfected Christian have free will? If so, then we have an example of free beings who do not choose evil.

Well I don't think these people are in heaven yet, but I do believe free will will be intact when they do. However, these are beings that have chosen evil in the past so this would be a non sequitur IMO .

It would interesting to see a proof of the assertion that at least one being must actually choose evil in order for all beings to be free in a morally relevant sense. Why couldn't God create all beings such that they are capable of actually choosing between good and evil but always choose good?

Good question. My thought would be that if evil was never chosen then it wasn't actually choice.

If such beings in heaven do not have free will, then why is free will a surpassing good? This is the crux of the issue. It would be very difficult to argue that compatibilist free will in this belief system, by which created beings are free to choose between good and evil according to natures and environments that God chose for them, provides a value that outweighs the negative effect of the existence of evil.

If evil is finite and will be done away with at some point, leaving only an eternal increased good then to me it would seem viable.

[ERayR]

I think this whole thread is missing the rather big point that time does not exist beyond the veil...

8 ... all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.[/i]

(Book of Mormon | Alma 40: 8 )

no time, no before/after, no cause/effect.

Hard to think of existing without time, but it seems this is how God lives...

Time is a finite measurement. To measure time one must have a point to measure time from. In Infinity taken as a whole there is no point of reference so there can be no measurement of time. To measure time you must stop at a point and measure from there.

I know it gives me a headache sometimes trying to get my mind around it and make some sense of it. It appears to me that God has figured out how to pick/organize/create points in eternity and use them to progress or change circumstances. (where is the aspirin) It would make travel interesting to be able to step in and out of time.

[ERayR]

Did anyone post all the pre-existence scripts yet? Just for those who are not LDS... from an old file of mine

1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In Eternity (infinity) there was/is no begining so this can onoy have reference to a point in infinity. That point being the point or testing period selected for us.

[mfbukowski]

Hey Bukowski,

I bolded a bit of your post. This is the thing that I have a hard time understanding.

If nothing is finite or contingent. Then do you also believe nothing is caused. This seems the logical conclusion, but I don't know if that is what you think though. If so how can God's will exist if all things are uncaused?

I am curious if you do believe things are caused, then how can something that is infinite be caused and how can it be said it is not contingent?

Thanks for your response. I am beginng to think those here think I am on the lunatic fringe or something, but you are exactly right.

My point is that inferring causation is not an easy "given" by any means in the history of philosophy. There was a famous debate between Hume and Kant which split philosophy into various schools, and the debate is not resolved even today. In case you don't believe me, here is a quote that shows that I am not making this up

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

Kant famously attempted to “answer” what he took to be Hume's skeptical view of causality, most explicitly in the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (1783); and, because causality, for Kant, is a central example of a category or pure concept of the understanding, his relationship to Hume on this topic is central to his philosophy as a whole. Moreover, because Hume's famous discussion of causality and induction is equally central to his philosophy, understanding the relationship between the two philosophers on this issue is crucial for a proper understanding of modern philosophy more generally. Yet ever since Kant offered his response to Hume the topic has been subject to intense controversy. There is no consensus, of course, over whether Kant's response succeeds, but there is no more consensus about what this response is supposed to be. There has been sharp disagreement concerning Kant's conception of causality, as well as Hume's, and, accordingly, there has also been controversy over whether the two conceptions really significantly differ. There has even been disagreement concerning whether Hume's conception of causality and induction is skeptical at all.

To make a highly complex and detailed history of the problem insanely short, the question is basically if causation exists "out there" in the world- whatever that means or if causation exists only in our perceptions of the world. The problem is that how can we know that one thing really is the "Cause" of another when really all we know is that event x is always followed by event y and it is not possible to logically prove a direct connection between the two events.

The whole pov that there can be a "first cause" totally ignores a significant portion of human thought which really ignores the issue altogether and looks at everything from a radically empirical point of view.

All we can really know is that through observation (ie: through our brain filtering sensory data or qualia and sorting it into perceptions and then further processing those perceptions into pictures and then abstracting them into ideas etc) Anyway- all we can really know through observation is that it sure looks like a "causes" b but we can never really PROVE it at all in a logical sense. We can only talk about the way it looks.

So the whole argument from a first cause, to me, begs the question of this entire history of causality and perception and experience and really takes it all down to a very basic 800 year old understanding most famously championed by Aquinas.

Frankly I think that LDS theology is ultimately incompatible with this first cause pov, UNLESS YOU LIMIT THE PICTURE TO A STATED TIMEFRAME. (as BC has pointed out - ie this universe since the big bang)

In other words if you are looking at a SEGMENT of time, you might see what you think is a first cause because a- that is how we habitually see reality as having causal relationships and b- you are looking ONLY at a segment, not the whole picture and c- you are not showing that there can be ANY causes logically at all, you are just pretending it can be shown, or ignoring the question which is the real "crime".

In other words, I think the discussion should be about if causation can be shown logically at all, because if it cannot be shown you are ignoring the biggest loophole to your "proof" that exists!

[ERayR]

Yes, there really is a Problem of Evil.

Assuming you accept the traditional, classical assertions about the nature of God, including that He is absolutely omniscient, then we must necessarily live in a deterministic universe.

1. God is omniscient in an absolute sense.

2. Since 1., God infallibly knows the outcome of all our future decisions.

3. Since 1., our universe is deterministic.

4. Since 3., the outcome of all our decisions is determined by the initial conditions of the universe coupled with whatever actions are taken by causative agents (God) outside the universe which have an effect on our universe.

5. God is the only casual agent outside our universe having a causative effect on it.

6. God is absolute First Cause.

7. Since 4., 5. and 6., God determines the outcome of all our decisions.

8. We decide to do evil.

9. Since 7. and 8., God determines that the evil we do exists.

10. God is responsible for the evil we do.

I see what I percieve as a fallacy in your conclusion. I do not see that allowing something, in this case the choice of evil, as synonomous with being resposible for it. Just because you make a statement and let me respond to it does not make you responsible for my response.

[Frijaneen]

Actually, using the algorithm I came up with for the solution to the chicken/egg conundrum I was also able to figure out a way to make instant scrambled eggs using only air (of any quality). This might be of some use in solving world hunger.

I just want to point out that the chicken/egg conundrum isn't a parallel to the LDS Cosmology Conundrum.

Eggs become chickens. Chickens make eggs. Which comes first? It's circular.

Intelligences become gods. Gods do not make intelligences. Which comes first? Intelligences. It's linear.

Frij

PS. I want to add that I'm "speaking" to the reading audience in general. BA81's post is just the one to which I chose to reply.

[mfbukowski]

Mudcat: As to what caused God to cause us after an infinity of non causality. I think he did it himself.

Nice speculation but it is really just a bunch of hand waving, because we are back to my original issue.

So what changed to cause God to change Himself? And what caused that change? Or in other words what is the real first cause?

See, this is saying what I just said in a different way.

[Frijaneen]

I see what I percieve as a fallacy in your conclusion. I do not see that allowing something, in this case the choice of evil, as synonomous with being resposible for it. Just because you make a statement and let me respond to it does not make you responsible for my response.

Johndoe is correct, ERayR. A sovereign God is responsible for evil and for the fate of His creations.

There is no way around it. Just like there's no reconciling the contradictory nature of LDS cosmology without going far outside the theological framework provided by LDS Prophets and Apostles.

Frij

[mfbukowski]

In any event, here's a form of cosmological argument that is most certainly valid and also happens to have clear premises:

P1 Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

P2 The universe has a beginning of its existence.

C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

P3: If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

C2: Therefore, God exists.

P2 is the first controversial premise...

Moving on from that, even if Craig overcomes objections from set theorists he still has the difficult task of showing ...

Notice that in P3 there is a use of the expression "God." .... P3 might just as well use the expression "Zazzleprod" in place of the expression "God." In other words, from the argument, the only thing that the expression "God" can mean is some sufficient and necessary existing cause; that's it.

The argument could be modified so that the expression "God" means the traditional Christian God, but that will require quite a bit more substance. I do think Craig has taken up that task, but I'm not sure how successful he's been.

Overall, not much to hang your hat on! And this is the "good" argument!

[changed]

Lets say I created a rather advanced robot series. They looked just like humans, were programmed with the same desires, capable of learning, understood that there is good and evil. In fact lets say part of their programming was that they actually were programmed to believe they were human and also that they could choose whatever suited them.

Say after a few years, we noticed that the robots chose bad acts and good acts at varying points. A lot of it seemed to do with the people they were around, life experiences and so forth. Let's say one robot was raised as a Mormon and did lots of good things. Another was raised by some militant Islamists and decided to blow himself up in an embassy attack.

Now it seems rather obvious if these robots weren't here, they would have no power to do anything since they wouldn't have existed. I am with you that far. These bots didn't choose to be created.

But how can you say they didn't have free will.

Yes, God opened up choices to us that were not available before, in that sense He gave us agency because without God there would not be much for us to choose between. Our ability to choose comes from our self-existent nature though. (you could place an apple and an orange in front of a robot, and the robot would not choose one over the other unless his program/programmer told it too... choices come from God, the ability to choose comes from within)

The robots did not have fre will because they were still just following their program that their programmer gave them.

Have you seen the robots who learn how to walk? There is a RNG that moves them, then an if/then statement that goes something along the lines of "if this random move got you closer to x then save this info, do this motion again... if random motion did not get you closer to x, then don't do this motion again"... and after some time they learn how to get from point A to point B:

This is a program, not free will. Everything can be traced back to the person who wrote the program.

If it has a beginning, if it is created, all of its actions can be traced back to the creator... anything that is created has no free will.

Only an independent self-existent uncreated being has free will.

[ERayR]

Johndoe is correct, ERayR. A sovereign God is responsible for evil and for the fate of His creations.

There is no way around it. Just like there's no reconciling the contradictory nature of LDS cosmology without going far outside the theological framework provided by LDS Prophets and Apostles.

Frij

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Allowance does not denote resposibility.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mudcat: Aside from God, the only other being that might know the answer to that is Chuck Norris.

Finally!!! A real answer.

I wonder if we can get everyone to accept this newly revealed "fact".

You do realise that I said that only because Chuck Norris has counted to infinity 2 times now. He must get it!!

[Mudcat]

Thanks for your response. I am beginng to think those here think I am on the lunatic fringe or something, but you are exactly right.

My point is that inferring causation is not an easy "given" by any means in the history of philosophy. There was a famous debate between Hume and Kant which split philosophy into various schools, and the debate is not resolved even today. In case you don't believe me, here is a quote that shows that I am not making this up

In other words, I think the discussion should be about if causation can be shown logically at all, because if it cannot be shown you are ignoring the biggest loophole to your "proof" that exists!

Great post Bukowski, I was hoping to get some sort of answer in regards to this and am thankful for the thought you put into it.

You bring up a good point, I suppose causation has been a fairly obvious assumption on my part and if causation doesn't exist then we should chunk my "proof".

Seems you are supportive of the concept that causation doesn't logically exist. I suppose I am trying to understand what you are suggesting a little better. Free will/agency has been thrown into the conversation earlier so I wanted to ask you something that might help get a better grip on where you are coming from.

This is what I think I understand so far... correct me if I am wrong.

P1. All things that exist are infinite and self-existent

P2. Nothing that is infinite is caused

C1. All things that exist are not caused

Now how does causation square with free will. It would seem to me that a choice could to do this or that could create an effect. Which would essentially be causing something.

So if cause doesn't exist, how does free will exist?

How does free agency fit into this.

Edit add - if you are a deranged lunatic, you are in good company here

[Mudcat]

You do realise that I said that only because Chuck Norris has counted to infinity 2 times now. He must get it!!

It has been posited by some of the rather scholarly sorts of folks that you often run into at wrestling matches, monster truck rallies and NASCAR events, that there is so much energy contained within a Chuck Norris round house kick. That if he ever missed his opponent he could reverse the Big Bang.

I guess we will never know, because Chuck Norris never misses.

[changed]

This is what I think I understand so far... correct me if I am wrong.

P1. All things that exist are infinite and self-existent

P2. Nothing that is infinite is caused

C1. All things that exist are not caused

Some things are caused... there are things that act, and things that are acted upon...

14 ... both things to act and things to be acted upon.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:14)

What is acted upon are caused by others to do things. Some people are caused by others to do things. Yes, we have free will, but that does not mean that we always use it. You have to have will power to have a will... many people don't use their will at all, they allow others to control their life.

Now how does causation square with free will. It would seem to me that a choice could to do this or that could create an effect. Which would essentially be causing something.

So if cause doesn't exist, how does free will exist?

How does free agency fit into this.

Edit add - if you are a deranged lunatic, you are in good company here

Cause effect exists... self-existent beings are their own cause I guess you could say. I caused myself to read a book, effect, I learned some new concepts etc. etc...

You can cause your own effects, and thus have free will.

...

Roses are red, violets are blue

I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.

.

sincerely,

deranged lunatic.

[johndoe]

I don't know that this would exactly how I would have stated it, but I don't see anything jumping out at me in blaring contradiction. It seems that because of point 10. you believe that this is a problem of evil. I guess a lot of people see this in the same manner, because it seems to be discussed quite a bit.

This is really only the outline of the first part of the argument. This is the part that shows a logical contradiction, but only for those Arminians who believe that free will must be of the libertarian sort. I suppose I expected that most Arminians would think something similar. It seems you don't.

In my mind, I don't see how God being responsible for the evil we do as a problem. You could just as easily insert "good" in the place of "evil" and I suppose we would have to deal with the PoG. I suppose as I see it, it seems apparent that evil must exist for God to achieve his will.

If the statement I have bolded above is actually true, then the Problem of Evil is easily solved. However, this is not trivial to demonstrate. It may seem apparent to you that this is true, but actually showing it is another story. It's quite a bit easier for us LDS, because we do not accept all of the classical assumptions about God's nature, one of which is God's absolute omnipotence. I realize that most nonLDS Christians accept that God's omnipotence doesn't entail that God must be capable of doing things that are logically contradictory. Still, you are left in a position where you have to show that it is logically contradictory for God to be able to acheive His will without evil existing, since (I assume) you accept no other limitations on God's power. This is a tall order, unless you fall back to the position that God simply wills evil, and good is defined by God (His nature, His command, His will, or something similar), therefore evil really isn't a bad thing. This position is at least intuitively unsatisfying, though there are many who posit that this is simply what the Bible teaches whether we like it or not.

Because the theodicy is built around the existence of God and our attempts to harmonize his existence with the status quo.

That's not what I meant. I meant - why is it necessary that we choose evil?

Dunno... if you mean angels.

Angels and God.

Well I don't think these people are in heaven yet, but I do believe free will will be intact when they do. However, these are beings that have chosen evil in the past so this would be a non sequitur IMO .

But if angels and God are in heaven, enjoying free will while never having chosen evil in the past, we have an actual example where a being can have free will yet never choose evil. If this is the case for angels and God, why is it not the case for people?

Good question. My thought would be that if evil was never chosen then it wasn't actually choice.

Then God and angels don't really have free will. That's a quick answer. It should be noted that the assertion that if one never chose evil then one was never actually free to choose evil is controversial. It would have to be demonstrated. That would be the discussion for the longer haul.

If evil is finite and will be done away with at some point, leaving only an eternal increased good then to me it would seem viable.

Again, what would be evil's purpose in this case? What is the greater good that evil's existence brings about that could not be brought about by an absolutely omnipotent God without it?

This is a bit of a derailment to the main topic. Did you see my post addressing the argument against infinite regression?

On that topic, I have an analogy that might make clearer the point I am trying to make. It's not perfect, but I hope it's helpful:

Let's say I have 100 elements, each weighing 1 pound. I have a set that includes all 100. I have a weighing station that sounds an alarm when the weight it measures passes 90 pounds.

I hear you arguing that 1 pound elements cannot make the alarm go off, therefore if the set is placed on the station, it is impossible for the alarm to go off.

What do you think?

[johndoe]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Allowance does not denote resposibility.

My argument is in the context of nonLDS beliefs regarding the nature of God, including creation from nothing and absolute omnipotence and omniscience. With these assumptions, God does not simply allow all that is, He is directly responsible for the whole kit and caboodle as First Cause.

LDS doctrine paints a different picture, of course.

[consiglieri]

I just want to point out that the chicken/egg conundrum isn't a parallel to the LDS Cosmology Conundrum.

Eggs become chickens. Chickens make eggs. Which comes first? It's circular.

Intelligences become gods. Gods do not make intelligences. Which comes first? Intelligences. It's linear.

Frij

Hi, Frijjy!

I just wanted to chime in with a suggestion that maybe Gods do create intelligence.

God is a being of glory.

As such, he emanates light.

D&C 93:36 indicates God's glory is itself intelligence, which is also equated to light.

Is it possible that God is an unending generator of intelligence by virtue of the glory he perpetually emanates?

Just a thought.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mudcat]

This is really only the outline of the first part of the argument. This is the part that shows a logical contradiction, but only for those Arminians who believe that free will must be of the libertarian sort. I suppose I expected that most Arminians would think something similar. It seems you don't.

Well I am what I am, and apparently if I am an EV that believes in free will I get to be an Arminian as well. From what I can gather I am actually a bit more of a Molinist, but also from what I can tell Molinism is basically advance Arminianism. I don't think free will and God's omniscience are mutually exclusive... so I suppose I am a compatibilist as well.

To tell you the truth John, for the most part, I draw my own conclusions and believe what I believe. Then through discourse with others, someone say oh your one of those X or one of those Y and so on. I search the term and say to myself.. well that is quite interesting, I have been an X or a Y for number of years and never knew it.

If the statement I have bolded above is actually true, then the Problem of Evil is easily solved. However, this is not trivial to demonstrate. It may seem apparent to you that this is true, but actually showing it is another story.

Your probably right. Though this is what I believe, it might be a bit difficult to demonstrate. I believe God is omniscient and good. I believe he made all things. I believe evil exists. So it is obvious to me that evil is part of God's creation.

However, evil is in direct opposition to good. How could God create evil and be good? I guess this at the heart of the PoE.

I have to deal with what I perceive to be facts. Evil exists because God created it. God is good. It leads me to the conclusion that evil is necessary in order for God to create more good. I can't say God isn't good because evil exists.... there is no truth in it. I find Christ's work for us sufficient evidence, but apparently not everyone agrees with that.

It's quite a bit easier for us LDS, because we do not accept all of the classical assumptions about God's nature, one of which is God's absolute omnipotence. I realize that most nonLDS Christians accept that God's omnipotence doesn't entail that God must be capable of doing things that are logically contradictory.

I dunno that it even applies. "Opposition in all things" and that sort of stuff. IMO, it seems that from an LDS perspective evil is just as causeless and eternal as God is. More like a grand eternal cosmic "work around".

Still, you are left in a position where you have to show that it is logically contradictory for God to be able to acheive His will without evil existing, since (I assume) you accept no other limitations on God's power. This is a tall order, unless you fall back to the position that God simply wills evil, and good is defined by God (His nature, His command, His will, or something similar), therefore evil really isn't a bad thing. This position is at least intuitively unsatisfying, though there are many who posit that this is simply what the Bible teaches whether we like it or not.

What am I to say here... we could look at the past century and put on some rather interesting horror shows of evil. Mass graves, death camps, people using pillows stuffed with the hair of other people, lamp shades hung on lamps made with that are made with the skin of other people and that's just a bit of it you know. There is plenty more where that came from.

If God exists, then I believe that somehow despite all this, the good that comes from it all must outweigh the evil that has been wrought. That at some point this sort of thing will happen no more. That is my position.

That's not what I meant. I meant - why is it necessary that we choose evil?

Because we do choose evil... All we can do is face the reality of that fact that we choose evil.

Angels and God.

Well you likely know that I have different take on angels. IMO they have the power to choose and some of them chose otherwise.

As for God, I think that is one of the things that makes God, God so to speak. He has the power to choose as well, but chooses not to.

But if angels and God are in heaven, enjoying free will while never having chosen evil in the past, we have an actual example where a being can have free will yet never choose evil. If this is the case for angels and God, why is it not the case for people?

Angels IMO have had opportunity to make a choice so this would seem a non sequitur. God chooses not to, because he is God and we botch it up quite often. Doesn't answer your question of course.

Then God and angels don't really have free will. That's a quick answer. It should be noted that the assertion that if one never chose evil then one was never actually free to choose evil is controversial. It would have to be demonstrated. That would be the discussion for the longer haul

.

Well hopefully at this point I have taken angels from the equation and just left God. Regardless, though I consider myself a joint-heir and a partaker of God's divinity, I couldn't say that I was God or would ever be God. I can't apply standards to him in regards to choosing evil. I have no right to do so.

edit add -

I don't mean to incite some sort of special pleading for God but as I reread my own words... I seem to be implying just that. I'll think on this a bit more and may try to flesh out my thoughts later, but feel free to draw conclusions, contradictions, etc.. as this may help me in that process.

Again, what would be evil's purpose in this case? What is the greater good that evil's existence brings about that could not be brought about by an absolutely omnipotent God without it?

All I can do is venture a guess and the ultimate answer would be a greater good.

This is a bit of a derailment to the main topic. Did you see my post addressing the argument against infinite regression?

I'll have to take that on the morrow... but I will address it.

As always JD, I enjoy the dialogue.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

Some things are caused... there are things that act, and things that are acted upon...

14 ... both things to act and things to be acted upon.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:14)

Emphasis mine. From your previous explanation nothing that is caused can have free will. So do you believe the things that are "acted upon" don't have free will?

What is acted upon are caused by others to do things. Some people are caused by others to do things. Yes, we have free will, but that does not mean that we always use it. You have to have will power to have a will... many people don't use their will at all, they allow others to control their life.

I am not following because there seems to be a contradiction. If everything is uncaused and everything has free will because it is uncaused, then there can be no genuine point in which we don't have free will, or suspend our free will or something like that. If we could suspend our free will, that would simply be another choice and exercise of our free will.

Cause effect exists... self-existent beings are their own cause I guess you could say. I caused myself to read a book, effect, I learned some new concepts etc. etc...

If a being is infinite and self existent, it can not cause itself. Can it? The premise for its existent is without cause.

[mfbukowski]

Hi, Frijjy!

I just wanted to chime in with a suggestion that maybe Gods do create intelligence.

God is a being of glory.

As such, he emanates light.

D&C 93:36 indicates God's glory is itself intelligence, which is also equated to light.

Is it possible that God is an unending generator of intelligence by virtue of the glory he perpetually emanates?

Just a thought.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Intesresting thought, and this correlates with the idea of the "light of Christ" filling the universe. I like it.

[ERayR]

My argument is in the context of nonLDS beliefs regarding the nature of God, including creation from nothing and absolute omnipotence and omniscience. With these assumptions, God does not simply allow all that is, He is directly responsible for the whole kit and caboodle as First Cause.

LDS doctrine paints a different picture, of course.

From that approach I can see where your comming from. As you said the LDS approach would, for me at least, require a different conclusion.

I think that most people do not consider the ramifications of infinity(eternal). The contemplation of infinity and its ramifications causes headaches and nausea.

[Mudcat]

This is a bit of a derailment to the main topic. Did you see my post addressing the argument against infinite regression?

On that topic, I have an analogy that might make clearer the point I am trying to make. It's not perfect, but I hope it's helpful:

Let's say I have 100 elements, each weighing 1 pound. I have a set that includes all 100. I have a weighing station that sounds an alarm when the weight it measures passes 90 pounds.

I hear you arguing that 1 pound elements cannot make the alarm go off, therefore if the set is placed on the station, it is impossible for the alarm to go off.

What do you think?

Oh I don't think it is a derailment at all. From what I can gather the discussion has gone all over the place, which is good, IMO. I usually think that if a thread splits off down a bunch of rabbit trails, the posters are producing more genuine thought and dialogue than I see in some of the threads turn out to be glorified ping pong matches.

Actually this whole bit about the infinite regress is more in the direction of the OP than a lot of stuff.

Perhaps I am being a bit myopic on the view of looking at singular events within the set than looking at the set in total. I must confess I am having a cognitive dilemma on the topic. As I am looking from a perspective of first cause, it pushes me towards looking at events in singularity. I don't know that I can apply your analogy to it.

I think this is what you seem to be saying, but let me toss this at you and see if I am getting closer

P1. Infinity exists

P2. Nothing that is infinite can be caused

P3. Anything that is finite or contingent is caused

P4. (What would you put here to reach C1)

C1. An infinite string of finite or contingent things can exist

Also, I wanted to get back and readdress something else from your previous post

But if angels and God are in heaven, enjoying free will while never having chosen evil in the past, we have an actual example where a being can have free will yet never choose evil. If this is the case for angels and God, why is it not the case for people?

Then God and angels don't really have free will. That's a quick answer. It should be noted that the assertion that if one never chose evil then one was never actually free to choose evil is controversial. It would have to be demonstrated. That would be the discussion for the longer haul

As I stated in previous post, it seems as though I am introducing some sort of special pleading for God, in that he never had to choose evil. I wanted to explain that a bit further. Though it's my understanding that we are made in the image of God. We are also not made God in the same process. So there is a variance between God and we being made in his image. Recognizing the difference between the two, would it be logical to apply the same properties in regards to free will that God has applied to us.

I bolded that bit, as you were restating something I had submitted in regards to free will earlier. To clarify, it is my position that at least one has to choose evil for it to be a valid choice. Not that we "all" must choose evil at least once.

But you pose a serious question. Does God have free will?

Does he really have the power of choice or is he bound by himself to perfection. If God is perfect, then all choices made must be perfect, otherwise God is not perfect. So in that sense, we could say that God doesn't have free will.

However, the choice to be perfect itself would imply that all perfect choices he makes are made by his free will.

Anyways, apologies for a rather cruddy return post last night. I feel I was leaning a bit to heavily on faith instead of trying to provide you a cogent response.

[ERayR]

As I stated in previous post, it seems as though I am introducing some sort of special pleading for God, in that he never had to choose evil. I wanted to explain that a bit further. Though it's my understanding that we are made in the image of God. We are also not made God in the same process. So there is a variance between God and we being made in his image. Recognizing the difference between the two, would it be logical to apply the same properties in regards to free will that God has applied to us.

I bolded that bit, as you were restating something I had submitted in regards to free will earlier. To clarify, it is my position that at least one has to choose evil for it to be a valid choice. Not that we "all" must choose evil at least once.

But you pose a serious question. Does God have free will?

Does he really have the power of choice or is he bound by himself to perfection. If God is perfect, then all choices made must be perfect, otherwise God is not perfect. So in that sense, we could say that God doesn't have free will.

However, the choice to be perfect itself would imply that all perfect choices he makes are made by his free will.

Anyways, apologies for a rather cruddy return post last night. I feel I was leaning a bit to heavily on faith instead of trying to provide you a cogent response.

Mudcat;

I may get a little elemantal here but it is only to help me develop my thoughts. To have free will one must have choices. When choices are presented it is understood that in making different choices one both opens doors and closes doors. A choice made opens the opportunity for some new and different choices and it closes the opportunity for others incompatible with the choice made.

So then God has chosen to be perfect(a topic to be explored at a later date, what is perfect)therefore he has shut the doors to any choice that is not perfect. On the other hand he has opened doors to other choices of things pertaining to perfection (wish I had any idea what they are. way above my paygrade but i am confident they are there). So while he has closed the door to imperfect choices ther is still choices available. As stated I have no idea what they would be.

And then there is the possibility (however slim) that he might revisit some of his earlier choices and change them.

Just some rambling thoughts.