The First Cause

[Hughes]

It would be impossible to prove that anything of infinite durations exists. One has to start with a relevent starting point such as a point in time that is known. Then, a person could measure or count events from that moment either backwards or forwards and no matter what, never will he be able to count any events that have ever happened from that point as being anything but finite. Our existance and our ability to have consciousness, etc, is wholly dependent upon the fact of being able to recount only finite sets of things and having them placed in orders relative to each other. There is a reason that God only has "numbered" worlds and "numbered" children- He actually only ever has a finite set of them and will continue to always only have a finite set of them. All of God's actions are thus also numbered. Anything that is thus numbered has to have a beginning.

So are you saying that God had a beginning and at some point he didn't exist? That God is not eternal?

[ERayR]

No I can't, because it doesn't make sense.

In example a child was conceived in a particular hour.

9 months of hours later.. the child was born. I see no reason that the events from hour to hour are discreet, rather they are interlinked.

Mucat I am agreeing with you. What happens now is affected by what has happened and what happens in the future is affected by what happens now.

[LeSellers]

Mucat I am agreeing with you. What happens now is affected by what has happened and what happens in the future is affected by what happens now.

While that is true for many things, it is not true for all things.

For example, if you beat your dog today, it does not affect affect my arthritis today, nor any other time. One thing effects others only when there is some connection between them and that connection must also fall into a fairly restricted field: someone can be drunk on Saturday with no effect on his driving on Friday.

Lehi

[Mudcat]

Thanks.

I agree with you, but how does one answer the question that God did "this or that" before "this other thing..." before creating the Universe, does that indicate that part of God's nature is time of some sort?

Sorry for the delay Hughes.

I meant to get this out last night, but got sidetracked on some retarded stuff interesting dramatic events.

It's a difficult question, because there is no linguistically coherent way to answer it and if we could answer it to satisfaction linguistically I don't think our brains could comprehend it fully. Our brains function logically.. through sequence and processing. Time is a natural element... before,now,after are all part of our language structure and I don't think our brains can actually comprehend of a beginning point without also assuming that there was a "before" that occurred prior to a specific beginning.

So the suggestion that time, space and matter all had a beginning means that there was nothing temporal, spatial or material prior to such a beginning. Words like "before the beginning" have no meaning in the truest since. "Before" reflects a temporal element that couldn't logically be before a beginning of time. The fact that such a concept isn't completely coherent to our mind, is it's unappealing trait. But I don't think inability to comprehend a thing also make that same thing untrue.

Regardless of it's difficulty in understanding, it seems to make more sense to me than competing views.

It leaves one with the notion that if this is the way it actually works, then God must've been doing nothing before the beginning and he only started doing something at the beginning. This seems an intractable notion for most. We envision God as great doer of things and the thought him doing nothing makes no sense. But even such a vision of God doing nothing is by us associated falsely with an element of doing nothing for a period of time. For God to actually be able to do something "before" the beginning of time, space and matter. He would have to be a timeless, immaterial, mind and in this respect, that it was I think.

I think the problem we face, is that we want to see the mind of God operating like our own sequentially logical minds, except better. We sort of want him to be better at sequential logic to the nth degree than us.. and no doubt he is. Given my view, he designed sequential logic, it would be natural that he his better. But by anthropomorphizing the mind of God, we actually create a boundary for the mind of God.

As I see it, God is a being who transcends all we can know from our present finite and logical frame of being and He does things in ways we can not fully comprehend that are beyond the scope of our perceptible reality.

To answer specifically if time is a part of God's nature...

I don't think so in any direct sense, the concept that God is time, flirts with Pantheism. Rather, I believe God created time, as he did all things and one day will bring it to an end. Ushering in a new era in his creative process, in which those that love him through Christ will be willing participants in and benefactors of.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

edit - strike through with better phrasing

[Rob Osborn]

So are you saying that God had a beginning and at some point he didn't exist? That God is not eternal?

God as being a "god" had a beginning. I don't believe He has always been God. Even God has only numbered memories. Not even He can go back so far that his memories are infinite. At no pint could he ever remeber a memory from his past that was an infinity distant point.

[urroner]

To answer specifically if time is a part of God's nature...

I don't think so in any direct sense, the concept that God is time, flirts with Pantheism. Rather, I believe God created time, as he did all things and one day will bring it to an end. Ushering in a new era in his creative process, in which those that love him through Christ will be willing participants in and benefactors of.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

edit - strike through with better phrasing

Logically, how could God create the first temporal dimension when the act of creating something requires that there be a temporal dimension first so an action can be taken? To me, that is a fine example of a Catch-22 situation.

[Ambrose]

Logically, how could God create the first temporal dimension when the act of creating something requires that there be a temporal dimension first so an action can be taken? To me, that is a fine example of a Catch-22 situation.

Respectfully, the best arguments that time had a beginning begin with the eternality of the World. However, I think even those arguments to be for the most part invalid. But if a valid argument were to be constructed for the finitude of time, it would necessarily begin with how it is that a subject is predicated with "past", "present", and "future".

Past seems to be said truly of things that are not, thus virtually.

Present seems to be said truly of things that are, thus actually.

Future seems to be said truly of things that yet are not, thus virtually.

Do you have another take on these terms?

[Questing Beast]

God as being a "god" had a beginning. I don't believe He has always been God. Even God has only numbered memories. Not even He can go back so far that his memories are infinite. At no pint could he ever remeber a memory from his past that was an infinity distant point.

Then that "god" you speculate on is not the Necessary Cause Of Existence In The First Place. And "stuff" must of necessity be sentient, which makes eternally existing, infinite "stuff" GOD for all intents and purposes....

[Questing Beast]

[deleted: something whacko is going on with the boards just now - I'm getting the intermittent "Forbidden" message....]

[Mudcat]

Logically, how could God create the first temporal dimension when the act of creating something requires that there be a temporal dimension first so an action can be taken? To me, that is a fine example of a Catch-22 situation.

I think I understand what you are asking Urroner. You may have to clarify in case I am missing something that isn't explicit.

I don't see it as a Catch 22 of sorts. I thought I addressed this earlier in the thread, but I may not have been very clear.

If I am understanding your point of view, you are saying that time would have to exist before God could actually make a creative action, because the act of creating..(time, space, matter) would require an "in-time" interaction. Hopefully I have got that right.

Btw, I don't mean to suggest that these are your views, you being LDS would have a different view, rather that these seem to be the your perspective of a problem you see with my view.

I had brought up the notion of simultaneity in a previous post. Let me explain it a bit more.

Causes don't always have to precede their effects, they can be simultaneous.

In example, Galileo dropped some balls off the top of the Tower of Pisa. When the balls were released they dropped. The balls didn't hover around a moment or so before dropping, for dramatic effect, they just dropped. The cause, being releasing the balls and the effect of the balls dropping were simultaneous.

If causes don't have to precede effects, then it is logical to say that God's causal power of creation of time, matter and space was simultaneous with the effect of the creation of time, matter and space.

So I don't think the logic is flawed, unless I am missing something here.

[Mudcat]

[deleted: something whacko is going on with the boards just now - I'm getting the intermittent "Forbidden" message....]

Yep... you must be on the short list QB for the next banning. It always starts with the intermittent "Forbidden" message... IIRC as your time shortens you'll notice that your shoes begin to smell like brimstone.

[ERayR]

While that is true for many things, it is not true for all things.

For example, if you beat your dog today, it does not affect affect my arthritis today, nor any other time. One thing effects others only when there is some connection between them and that connection must also fall into a fairly restricted field: someone can be drunk on Saturday with no effect on his driving on Friday.

Lehi

But it is certainly a factor when my dog bites me tomorrow and if my dog chases you around the block at high speed it will probably affect your arthitis.

Not every action affects every other action but it certainly affects directly related actions.

It depends on which Friday. If your talking the previous Friday I agree but if you are talking about the following Friday it may very well affect his ability to drive if he gets a DUI.

[sethpayne]

But didn't Joseph Smith say that anything that has a beginning has to have an end?

That was the Oracle from the Matrix.

[LeSellers]

But it is certainly a factor when my dog bites me tomorrow and if my dog chases you around the block at high speed it will probably affect your arthitis.

Which only reinforces my observation that sometimes there is an effect, and sometimes there is none.

Not every action affects every other action but it certainly affects directly related actions.

I believe that's what I said. Of course, I may be mistaken about that belief, but I cannot imagine how.

It depends on which Friday. If your talking the previous Friday I agree but if you are talking about the following Friday it may very well affect his ability to drive if he gets a DUI.

No. If someone drinks himself to stupidity (not a big swig, by the way, but let's assume it's two fifths of vodka, and it didn't outright kill him) on Tuesday, his liver will have neutralized the drug long before Friday. Now, if he drinks on Thursday, he may still be impaired the next day, but not three days later.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

That was the Oracle from the Matrix.

Hey sethpayne! Good to see you!

[Mudcat]

Which only reinforces my observation that sometimes there is an effect, and sometimes there is none.

Hi Lehi,

I know this is more a topic between you and Eray. But I wanted to posit something to you.

That being, we have no ability to judge what causes have greater effect than others. In the present tense, the decisions of any given person may seem without effect or of even negative effect.

But history may look upon it differently.

2,000 years ago a fellow by the common name of Jesus died upon a cross for blasphemy.

Now a third of the world seems to believe in him.

I imagine for the most part,those of the immediate time of Christ, simply thought a blasphemer was put to death.

On another note, I am doubtful the denizens of Shaoshan, thought that little Mao, the peasant farmers son would lead their country and starve millions.

We don't really understand the ripple effect of our actions.

[Mudcat]

Hey sethpayne! Good to see you!

Seths in the house... booyah.

[Hughes]

Thanks Mudcat.

In pondering your words I am in agreement, however it seems rather restrictive to think that everything happened simultaneously before the creative event occured. What I am saying I think is that time as a limitation only has meaning when time and energy are limited.

When time and energy are unlimited the reference to anything beyond "before" or "after" references are irrelevant and without meaning. In other words, I don't see the simultaneous restriction as a necessary qualifier. Where of course God could have done things simultaneously but then why create time in the first place?

Seems to me that his creating space time as we experience it is sort of a shadow or finite example of what he experiences.

I am still pondering this. So thanks again, and I apreciate your insight. (typed on my phone. On my way to Oregon)

Sorry for the delay Hughes.

I meant to get this out last night, but got sidetracked on some retarded stuff interesting dramatic events.

It's a difficult question, because there is no linguistically coherent way to answer it and if we could answer it to satisfaction linguistically I don't think our brains could comprehend it fully. Our brains function logically.. through sequence and processing. Time is a natural element... before,now,after are all part of our language structure and I don't think our brains can actually comprehend of a beginning point without also assuming that there was a "before" that occurred prior to a specific beginning.

So the suggestion that time, space and matter all had a beginning means that there was nothing temporal, spatial or material prior to such a beginning. Words like "before the beginning" have no meaning in the truest since. "Before" reflects a temporal element that couldn't logically be before a beginning of time. The fact that such a concept isn't completely coherent to our mind, is it's unappealing trait. But I don't think inability to comprehend a thing also make that same thing untrue.

Regardless of it's difficulty in understanding, it seems to make more sense to me than competing views.

It leaves one with the notion that if this is the way it actually works, then God must've been doing nothing before the beginning and he only started doing something at the beginning. This seems an intractable notion for most. We envision God as great doer of things and the thought him doing nothing makes no sense. But even such a vision of God doing nothing is by us associated falsely with an element of doing nothing for a period of time. For God to actually be able to do something "before" the beginning of time, space and matter. He would have to be a timeless, immaterial, mind and in this respect, that it was I think.

I think the problem we face, is that we want to see the mind of God operating like our own sequentially logical minds, except better. We sort of want him to be better at sequential logic to the nth degree than us.. and no doubt he is. Given my view, he designed sequential logic, it would be natural that he his better. But by anthropomorphizing the mind of God, we actually create a boundary for the mind of God.

As I see it, God is a being who transcends all we can know from our present finite and logical frame of being and He does things in ways we can not fully comprehend that are beyond the scope of our perceptible reality.

To answer specifically if time is a part of God's nature...

I don't think so in any direct sense, the concept that God is time, flirts with Pantheism. Rather, I believe God created time, as he did all things and one day will bring it to an end. Ushering in a new era in his creative process, in which those that love him through Christ will be willing participants in and benefactors of.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

edit - strike through with better phrasing

[urroner]

Causes don't always have to precede their effects, they can be simultaneous.

In example, Galileo dropped some balls off the top of the Tower of Pisa. When the balls were released they dropped. The balls didn't hover around a moment or so before dropping, for dramatic effect, they just dropped. The cause, being releasing the balls and the effect of the balls dropping were simultaneous.

If causes don't have to precede effects, then it is logical to say that God's causal power of creation of time, matter and space was simultaneous with the effect of the creation of time, matter and space.

So I don't think the logic is flawed, unless I am missing something here.

The cause of the two balls dropping, that Galileo dropped, was that Galileo dropped them. They just didn't magically appear in the air with no cause and then drop.

But it doesn't matter the time delta between the action and the act, for anything to change, there has to exist a temporal dimension. There has to be a before and an afterward. God had to make a decision to do something or that something would happen and yes, the "something" action would demand time to exist, but also, the decision that God made is also an action and requires time, since there has to be a before and an afterward of the decision.

As a Mormon, I don't have a problem with that, but for those who believe that God created everything ex nihilo, the only way I can see around it is for a part of God to be a temporal dimension. Since this temporal dimension is part of God, whatever He is, then it has existed as part of Him forever and since God didn't create Himself, He didn't have to create this temporal dimension.