Mormons and the First Cause

[Ambrose]

Thank you for your post.

I noticed that most of it was based on summarizing Aquinas' argument but not telling me why it works or doesn't work.

Maybe you could explain the above quote in your own words and tell me what it means because I am having trouble understanding it. How does one reduce the concrete to the abstract?

It sounds so abstract to me that I am not sure what you are saying, and frankly I am not sure you understand it either. Not that it's your fault- I think it is not understandable.

Thank you for your patience with me and all that I lack, for you are right in noting that I do not understand these things.

My amateurish glance at St. Thomas' methodology shows that Hume's objection to the Cosmological Argument, at least when Hume's objection is directed towards St. Thomas, is not on a level playing field. Hume seems to play a modern abstract game whereby all things must be demonstrated a priori else it is not conclusive. Hume and St. Thomas do not agree in their epistemologies, nor methodologies.

The sentence in question is to point out what I believe to be the central problem in dialogue between disciples of Hume and St. Thomas. Both argue ad fontes, wanting to build sturdy foundations or see sturdy foundations. St. Thomas simply seems to strike gold on reality (sensibility), and Hume sifts sand in the abstract speculation about whether or not we might know causality to be true.

I hope that I am not making a caricature of Hume, as I have only read his Treatise on Human Understanding Once, and that was a number of years ago. All else that I know of him is from excerpts posted to me in conversation. But he is often painted, and I think your posts might illustrate this as well, as a far more down-to-earth fellow than St. Thomas.

I do not see that in what has been presented to me of their epistemologies and methodologies.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you for your patience with me and all that I lack, for you are right in noting that I do not understand these things.

My amateurish glance at St. Thomas' methodology shows that Hume's objection to the Cosmological Argument, at least when Hume's objection is directed towards St. Thomas, is not on a level playing field. Hume seems to play a modern abstract game whereby all things must be demonstrated a priori else it is not conclusive. Hume and St. Thomas do not agree in their epistemologies, nor methodologies.

The sentence in question is to point out what I believe to be the central problem in dialogue between disciples of Hume and St. Thomas. Both argue ad fontes, wanting to build sturdy foundations or see sturdy foundations. St. Thomas simply seems to strike gold on reality (sensibility), and Hume sifts sand in the abstract speculation about whether or not we might know causality to be true.

I hope that I am not making a caricature of Hume, as I have only read his Treatise on Human Understanding Once, and that was a number of years ago. All else that I know of him is from excerpts posted to me in conversation. But he is often painted, and I think your posts might illustrate this as well, as a far more down-to-earth fellow than St. Thomas.

I do not see that in what has been presented to me of their epistemologies and methodologies.

I do not mean this to be in any way disparaging- but I find it extremely interesting that from my pov, you "think like a Catholic".

I really think there are different psychological types who gravitate to different religions- and honestly I don't mean that is good or bad.

You definitely like the person Aquinas is, and I kinda like Hume. I even tend to argue in his style, just with a little more modern language.

I used to be Catholic but try as I might, I could never think like one!

[zerinus]

Thank you Ahab, I can see that I have got you thinking harder this time!

Are you asking, in other words, if there was ever a time when God was all there was in existence... with God defined as a kind of being comprised of different persons and with that kind of being also being the best creator/organizer in all of existence... and yet with God having nothing to create/organize other than the kind of being God is?

If so, No, I really don't think so.

I suppose that is the kind of thing I meant; or maybe going further and asking if there was ever a time when there was no God, or God wasn

[Ahab]

Was there a beginning to things?

WARNING: Check with God for yourself before you believe anything I say, and believe what I say only if God agrees with me.

(that should be natural practice for everyone, but just in case you don't know you should do that, I have now warned you)

On an individual level, yes, in some sense, but not generally speaking.

For example, God, as a kind of being, has always existed, and that kind of being has always had the power or ability to produce offspring in a parent/child relationship. Contrary to popular opinion, though, life doesn't begin at conception, at least not literally. Life continues, eternally, and we are the children of God.

That is a profound statement to make. I suppose you could say that is true in God

[zerinus]

WARNING: Check with God for yourself before you believe anything I say, and believe what I say only if God agrees with me.

(that should be natural practice for everyone, but just in case you don't know you should do that, I have now warned you)

On an individual level, yes, in some sense, but not generally speaking.

For example, God, as a kind of being, has always existed, and that kind of being has always had the power or ability to produce offspring in a parent/child relationship. Contrary to popular opinion, though, life doesn't begin at conception, at least not literally. Life continues, eternally, and we are the children of God.

That's a popular perception among most people in the world today, but I don't accept it. The idea that at some point God was all there was in existence and then later everything else came from either nothing at all or from part of God's very own being seems to contradict what I believe God has told us about how each kind of being has seed in itself to reproduce after its own kind.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? I don't see that as necessarily so, as I have already explained.

Organized, yes, in some sense, but not necessarily from out of nothing or from a state of no organization at all.

Organization is basically all about taking something from one place and putting it in another place with there being something somewhere to begin with, otherwise there would be nothing to organize.

There was no beginning to everything, in general, in my perspective. Only a continuation of things that were already in existence with each thing reproducing after its own kind.

In the beginning, in Genesis, refers to the beginning of the creation of this world, or the things pertaining to this world (or planet).

According to all that I've learned, Kolob was the first world or planet (or whatever it is, maybe even a black hole) which God (our Father in heaven) created as the beginning of his own galaxy, amidst all of the other galaxies that were already in existence, and with Jesus Christ being his first spirit child, in much the same way that each of us will go on to build our own galaxy and have spirit children. That's the great "secret" Joseph alluded to in the KFD, which really isn't much of a secret now, is it.

No, but that doesn't mean he was never born as a spirit child of his parents from the seeds within them reaching back throughout all of eternity to become all that he is today.

Thank you Ahab for that interesting discussion.

[Ahab]

Thank you Ahab for that interesting discussion.

I hope you threw at least 1 rep point my way.

I collect them, because I think they're pretty.

[Ambrose]

I do not mean this to be in any way disparaging- but I find it extremely interesting that from my pov, you "think like a Catholic".

I really think there are different psychological types who gravitate to different religions- and honestly I don't mean that is good or bad.

You definitely like the person Aquinas is, and I kinda like Hume. I even tend to argue in his style, just with a little more modern language.

I used to be Catholic but try as I might, I could never think like one!

I am not sure that there is any one way to think like a Catholic. St. Thomas certainly did not think like Duns Scotus nor like St. Bonaventure, et al., and I have a hard time believing that I think like any of the great doctors of the Church.

[ERayR]

I believe that tradition Mormon theology would argue that there is no First Cause, there is merely an infinite regression.

I would recommend Sterling McMurrin's The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion.

Although it is a rare occasion when I agree with John Larson, this is one of them.

[ERayR]

Well then where would you say intelligence came from if it had a beginning? Theorize if you wish. We were spirits gathered from intelligence and made. However how was the intelligence come to be? Ex Nihilo? Maddening to think about isn't it? Well at least to me.

No begining or end only eternal- infinite. No first cause. Next to impossible to wrap a mortal, finite mind around.

[Ahab]

No begining or end only eternal- infinite. No first cause. Next to impossible to wrap a mortal, finite mind around.

It's hard to understand only if you're trying to figure out some way for there to have been a beginning to everything.

If you just accept the fact that there was no beginning to everything, though, it's really very simple to grasp.

[erichard]

Although it is a rare occasion when I agree with John Larson, this is one of them.

I also read "The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion" -- not long after my mission to Italy-- and felt enlightened by it.

If Soren and other Catholics here have not read it, they should consider doing so.

Should I rep John Larson, or has he already been reped for this?

OP: As I understand the teachings of the Prophet Joseph, including the scriptures revealed through him, creation has ALWAYS been going on. The elements are eternal, including intelligences. There was never a "first" earth, and first God, or a first anything.

Richard

[Storm Rider]

Would it be fair to say that Mormons still accept a First Cause of the Universe, considering we believe in eternal intelligence? Would intelligence thus be the First Cause?

Also, I'd like some of links to what you all consider to be the best papers on the philosophy of the Mormon concept of God.

I would recommend Blake T. Ostler's books "Exploring Mormon Thought - The Attributes of God". There are three volumes.

[ERayR]

I also read "The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion" -- not long after my mission to Italy-- and felt enlightened by it.

If Soren and other Catholics here have not read it, they should consider doing so.

Should I rep John Larson, or has he already been reped for this?

OP: As I understand the teachings of the Prophet Joseph, including the scriptures revealed through him, creation has ALWAYS been going on. The elements are eternal, including intelligences. There was never a "first" earth, and first God, or a first anything.

Richard

For a great many this eternal (infiniti) concept is very difficult. In our finite existence all we see is bounderies. Beginings and endings. To comprehend infinity is mind bogling. I can remember that in school when the concept of a mathmatical infiniti was introduced I was one of the few that didn't have a lot of difficulty with it. However, when I get in a finite thinking mode I have to clear my head and start over.