The First Cause

[LeSellers]

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

If that's true, and all beings like us have an origin, how can we end up having no end (let alone no beginning)?

We had no beginning. We existed as intelligences forever into the distant past, and irrespective of what awaits any particular person, we will live forever into the future. We have no end.

It is true we have, and will yet change in our "tangibility": as intelligences, we had one "dimension", as spirits, we had two, we have three, and in the future, we will have four. But, as I said earlier, we have always existed.

doesn't the BOA say that God "found Himself among other intelligences" (plural)?

If that's true, wouldn't it mean we already existed as co-eternal individuals, before we became His spirit children?

If we already existed, wouldn't that mean He didn't really create us?

It depends entirely on what you mean by "create".

In Genesis, the Hebrew word is "bara". It means "to shape or fashion", not "to draw out of nothingness", as many people erroneously assume. The (non-LDS) Young's Literal Translation tells us that the first verse of the Bible does not mean there was a "beginning" at all.

1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth—2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

The famous beginning was not the first of creation, it was the beginning of the preparation of this heaven and this earth.

And what about agency?

Did He give it to us, or did we already have it?

Did we agree to become His spirit children?

We don't know about the status of agency prior to our spiritual generation. However, there is abundant evidence that agency has always been a characteristic of human kind.

God re-affirmed our agency when He rejected Satan's plan to suspend it (at best) so we could all return to Him.

I believe we had agency as intelligences. I believe that our choice to become spirit children was based on our desire on the one hand, and our preparation on the other. There was, as in the spirit world/premortality, a progression where we became ready to be born to our heavenly Parents, just as we had to advance to a certain stage to be born here.

Lehi

P.S. I apologize for the typos in this (and near-term future) messages. I cut the end off my finger this afternoon, only now returning from the Emergency Room with a huge bandage on the little finger of my all-important left hand. The CAPS LOCK key keeps getting depressed, and any "A" seems to carry along a host of its fellows and several "Ss", as well. I don't catch them all LS

[CV75]

How do Mormons interpret this passage?

I think the LDS perspective would lean toward the Restored Gospel providing answers about “where we came from, why we are here, where we are going” only as far back and forward to a common denominator of readily understood points that mortals can comprehend by the power of the Spirit and still remain in this world. Some saints do go beyond those points, but often they are forbidden to share with those who remain, and for good reasons.

So from this perspective, Paul is asking who, among his hearers, or any mortal, gave God anything, and then goes on to say that instead all things we can wrap our minds around are instead of Him. Paul is not including at this point that we are to give all that we are to Him, a broken heart and contrite spirit, love, honor, glory, obedience, etc., the many things that we do in fact render or give to or give back to Him as much as we are able.

For the LDS it makes sense that God came from somewhere, and obtained what He has somehow, but as to this we only have a few hints, part of which may be much like the pattern He is having us follow in order to become like Him. The Gospel brings us back to His presence where we can receive and enjoy the same things He does and understand those things that are beyond the points that we now understand, such as: how it can be that we co-exist(ed) with Him eternally; or that He gave us our agency in the Garden of Eden even though we possessed it already as spirits, and presumably before that (He gave us expanded opportunities to exercise it in advancing estates, and in this sense gave us our agency); or that He associates/d with others like Him and they give and take among themselves much as we do as joint heirs with Christ; or that a mother is made in a sense by her children when she has them, or cares for them by adoption or simply out of kindness.

[elguanteloko]

Not at all, "man"

Hume is seen as one of the first "linguistic" philosophers. At the basis of the whole thing you have a linguistic philosopher (Hume) against Thomism in all its Aristotelian glory.

I don't see how that changes what I said. To name a language game as a language game is to be playing another language game oneself; you can't get outside as long as you use language. Fesser's response to Hume is a game you are taking a part of by accepting Hume's answer instead of dissolving the problem by naming why both are talking past the best approach. All you did is take Hume's side without attacking Fesser's arguments directly.

http://en.wikipedia...._Hume#Causation

Feser is a Thomist. That should alert you right there that this fight is going to be about language before you hear word 1.

Ok if you challenge me on it, I will read the articles and give you my opinion of Feser's argument. I still don't understand why it is even an issue. I guarantee it is going to be like arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. That is the nature of Thomist argument.

How's that for a rotten attitude?

But you'd better be ready to defend a Thomist. Good luck on that one, Mr Chomsky!

I "challenge" you to address Fesser's arguments.

[urroner]

There is no first cause because we're all recursive function calls.

The Japaneses have created the ultimate super computer. The thing is so fast that in can complete an infinite loop in 5.23956234 seconds.

[Questing Beast]

There is no first cause- the notion doesn't make sense.

Hume proved that long ago.

Nothing can be proven to be the cause of anything else, in a "logically necessary" sense.

All one has is event 1 followed with event 2- you cannot prove that 2 was "caused" by 1.

What was your cause? Your father? Your mother? Your sixth great grandfather? The first organism to crawl from the primordial ooze? The Big Bang? The Big Crunch? How many previous Big Bangs or Big Crunches did it take to make you?

They were all contributing causes to you being here, yet none were "logically necessary".

The whole idea just plain doesn't work

You are looking at cause and effect within space-time contexts. That's why it appears to be "turtles all the way down" no matter what paradigm you try.

But "God" (Existence In The First Place) is the Cause of space-time existing at all. Equally Existing is Void; i.e. NOW with NOTHING. Both states are just as real and Exist together. To "God" "all things are before ["his"] face continually." Which is just an inadequate way of saying that from "God's" perspective there is no before and after, only NOW. All of infinitely expanding space-time Existence (in other words, the "multiverse"), including all the possibilities that can occur based on alternate choices and outcomes, Exist in that NOW state.

Existence is inarguable. Here we are. Why this?, in the place of nothing whatsoever, is the perennial "terrible question" that has no answer in empirical terms: space-time cannot examine the question. We Exist and there appears to be no Cause for it, especially when we can easily imagine the inescapable logic that there ought to be nothing rather than anything, if there is no Cause for existence in the first place.

As this Existence is inarguable, I attempt to worship that Cause and I call it "God", but this theology - incomplete though it will always be - is simple in the extreme and cannot be answered by any organized religious dogmatic theology that I know of. Therefore, as far as the religions of "the world" are concerned, they would all define me as an atheist since I cannot follow any of them. But in my opinion I am trying to become the ultimate theist. As I have said before, Joseph Smith's "God the Father" is too small to worship. And if God the Father is simply God In Total manifesting as a glorified man then how is God the Father any different from any of us? Even Mormon cosmology says we are not different: as the assertion is that intelligence and matter have always existed and cannot be created, ergo God the Father is merely an organizer not "The Creator" of any of the already-existing stuff - including especially ourselves. I allow that God the Father may be a "god" by his own definition because the universe as organized is his bailiwick: but I don't see what necessarily prevents "me" from leaving if I want to. The multiverse is far too big a place for limiting oneself to worshiping any god of a singular universe or even a plethora of universes.

The Original Cause Of Existence In The First Place is the only concept worthy of worship. All lesser beings deserve admiration, respect and love if they behave in a manner worthy of these feelings from us, and even obedience if their knowledge is of a higher order - and if they and I have a "contract" of mutual reciprocation. Trouble is, I am not convinced at this juncture that ANY religion on this planet is the product of a singular contract with such a manifestation of God In Total. The origins of the Mormon God the Father are manifestly, imho, derived from the religious genius of Joseph Smith, who "got it right" according to one religious academic I saw on TV in the 90s. He further opined that "someone was bound to get it right eventually". The man was not a Mormon either; he just gave Joseph Smith his due as a religious genius who put together doctrines and a cosmology that works better than any Christian dogma before it....

[Rivers]

My understanding is that intelligence was the first cause. And God is the greatest of all intelligences.

[Questing Beast]

Why do you even need a "cause" for anything to start with? ... I can imagine the universe as well uncaused as I can "caused".

What is the idea of "First Cause" good for?

What does it give us that we don't have without a cause?

It is totally an apologetic response for ex nihilo creation.

Existence and Void are simultaneous. Because without space-time EVERYTHING (including nothing) is simultaneous; without form, quantity or dimension by space-time perceptions.

If you say that the universe has always existed and therefore requires no "first cause" for its existence, then you are de facto admitting that the universe itself is sapient; for we are sapient and beings of purpose, and we cannot derive these qualities of sapience and purpose "ex nihilo": the effect cannot transcend the cause. So if the universe always existing is sapient and with purpose it is "God in Total" and we derive from it. There is no way that such a concept can be an anthropomorphic being or even any being with gender specific traits, etc. These anthropomorphic traits are merely attached by our species to our concepts for "God", and all such traits if they are the only traits "God" possesses and is possessed by, are finite ones. Therefore an always existing universe AS "God" is nevertheless infinite and eternal: in no way different from my theology other than in personal perception. I do not see "God" in such a manner, yet the qualities that go into my ever-altering theology are not at variance with the assertion that "the universe has always existed and requires no cause"....

[Questing Beast]

...

Lehi

P.S. I apologize for the typos in this (and near-term future) messages. I cut the end off my finger this afternoon, only now returning from the Emergency Room with a huge bandage on the little finger of my all-important left hand. The CAPS LOCK key keeps getting depressed, and any "A" seems to carry along a host of its fellows and several "Ss", as well. I don't catch them all LS

Bummer! I am sorry for your pain and diminished capacity. May you heal swiftly and adapt well, and I HOPE the missing portion is far less than what remains of your digit, even though it be the "little" one....

[mfbukowski]

I "challenge" you to address Fesser's arguments.

Duh.

I already said I would take them on when I get a chance, but would someone please tell me why they are important to Mormon theology so at least I can gat a little worked up about this?

Weekends are terribly busy for me.

[mfbukowski]

Existence and Void are simultaneous. Because without space-time EVERYTHING (including nothing) is simultaneous; without form, quantity or dimension by space-time perceptions.

If you say that the universe has always existed and therefore requires no "first cause" for its existence, then you are de facto admitting that the universe itself is sapient; for we are sapient and beings of purpose, and we cannot derive these qualities of sapience and purpose "ex nihilo": the effect cannot transcend the cause. So if the universe always existing is sapient and with purpose it is "God in Total" and we derive from it. There is no way that such a concept can be an anthropomorphic being or even any being with gender specific traits, etc. These anthropomorphic traits are merely attached by our species to our concepts for "God", and all such traits if they are the only traits "God" possesses and is possessed by, are finite ones. Therefore an always existing universe AS "God" is nevertheless infinite and eternal: in no way different from my theology other than in personal perception. I do not see "God" in such a manner, yet the qualities that go into my ever-altering theology are not at variance with the assertion that "the universe has always existed and requires no cause"....

But here's the deal. Your human brain organized all these ideas and though I don't doubt you are very smart, I think God is smarter.

So suppose God, who is smarter than you, already organized all this with his human brain, precisely as you conceive it. Suppose you are right, in other words

So if you can conceive this as an anthropomorphic being, why can't God do the same, and yet bring it into actuality?

See I kind of agree with you- I have trouble understanding you because you don't use philosophical language for philosophical concepts- but I am catching your drift I think.

In my opinion what you are not appreciating is the fact that your brain cannot conceive anything except what human brains can conceive. There is nothing outside the realm of what human brains can conceive that we can talk about or even say "exists"- because we- all of us from Einstein to some newborn baby- cannot know about it anyway.

So I would not limit what God can do because he is anthropomorphic- if you can conceive it, he can not only conceive it but bring it into existence, and probably has by organizing it in his brain/mind/whatever.

I have no problem with the universe being "sapient" and unfolding itself in an organic way, but I don't see that as incompatible even with my own brain creating things.

As I grow- as all of us grow, our abilities to conceive things increase. Conceiving something is the process of mentally organizing it, of in a sense, mentally "creating" it.

Suppose as God "grows" (eternal progression) as his very ability to organize mentally grows, just as it does for us, but his conceiving of something makes it "actual" for us. So in a sense HE - his ability to conceive- IS the "universe which is sapient".

We create our own universes- just as you are creating yours mentally. You are organizing your perceptions of reality into a unified world view which is your creation

All I am saying is that when he does it, we call that "reality". When we do it it becomes our "subjective little world". When HE does it, it becomes the "objective world of science" we can all see feel and touch.

[mfbukowski]

He did no such thing. Ask Antony Flew.

Flew thinks God leaves evidence.

I don't.

[Calm]

P.S. I apologize for the typos in this (and near-term future) messages. I cut the end off my finger this afternoon, only now returning from the Emergency Room with a huge bandage on the little finger of my all-important left hand.

Ouch.

[mfbukowski]

Duh.

I already said I would take them on when I get a chance, but would someone please tell me why they are important to Mormon theology so at least I can gat a little worked up about this?

Weekends are terribly busy for me.

You know what?

I am going to back off from this project, call it whatever you like.

Feser is so into Thomism that I really can't afford the time studying the Summa to figure out what he is saying especially when I see it has no importance whatsoever for Mormons.

I mean just look at this:

Both critics and defenders of arguments for the existence of God as an Uncaused Cause often assume that such arguments are essentially concerned to explain the universe considered as a whole. That is true of some versions, but not all. For instance, it is not true of Aquinas’s arguments, at least as many Thomists understand them. For the Thomist, you don’t need to start with something grand like the universe in order to show that God exists. Any old thing will do – a stone, a jar of peanut butter, your left shoe, whatever. The existence of any one of these things even for an instant involves the actualization of potencies here and now, which in turn presupposes the activity of a purely actual actualizer here and now. It involves the conjoining of an essence to an act of existence here and now, which presupposes a sustaining cause whose essence and existence are identical. It involves a union of parts in something composite, which presupposes that which is absolutely simple or incomposite. And so forth. (As always, for the details see Aquinas, especially chapter 3.)

To me, this is a mass of confusion. I have often criticized the idea of "essence" and "substance" and this board as being literally "no-thing".

I don't even really know what "exists" and what doesn't since that word has such an array of definitions (Do unicorns "exist" because they have a cultural existence in literature? Do undiscovered species "exist" even though we have no idea what their characteristics are?) and here he just throws things out like:

The existence of any one of these things even for an instant involves the actualization of potencies here and now, which in turn presupposes the activity of a purely actual actualizer here and now.

I mean what is THAT? What is that supposed to mean? If there are any Thomists here who want to explain it in plain English, fine, but I really don't care enough to get into it.

The school of philosophy from which Feser comes is 800 years old, and in my opinion, philosophy has advanced- the school of philosophy I am interested in involves the analysis of language and meanings, while his philosophy is steeped in metaphysics.

So to try and figure out where this guy is coming from, I did a little research- nothing more complicated than a google search- this from a review of his book "The Last Superstition".

Feser’s is a bold claim indeed, one very much out of philosophical fashion. In mainstream Anglo-American philosophy, the dominant position is that Hume and Kant long ago showed that the theistic proofs do not work. To overturn this verdict is a formidable task, and to accomplish it Feser needs to present a great deal of background material. The principal reason, he holds, that modern philosophers reject the theistic proofs is that, since the Enlightenment, they have accepted a truncated notion of causation. Today, philosophers think of a cause as one event, preceding another in time that brings it about. As an example, if I light a match, these philosophers would take this to mean that the event of striking the match is followed by the event of the fire’s appearance.

This departs from Aristotle’s delineation of four causes, efficient, final, formal, and material. Aristotle’s efficient cause corresponds most closely to the modern view, but even here the resemblance is not very strong. Aristotle thought efficient causation involved a substance rather than an event: I, not the event of striking the match, cause the fire.

To grasp Aristotle’s doctrine of causation, developed and extended by Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics, Feser needs to go back to Plato to explain the famous problem of universals. He argues against the view that universals are merely words or concepts in our minds. Instead, he favors the moderate realism of Aristotle and Aquinas. All this may sound abstract, but it is essential to understanding the way in which Feser thinks that God’s existence can be proved. Readers who are willing to cope with this rather difficult material will gain something else, besides being in a position to understand the theistic proofs. They will learn a great deal about the history of philosophy. I have never seen the topics that Feser discusses presented so clearly. It is an effort well worth the effort. --David Gordon, Ludwig von Mises Institute, for The American Conservative Union Foundation, Issue 120, November 19, 2008

Yep, so I admit I am in the "mainstream" and I really don't feel like going back to Plato's universals. The ARE merely words or concepts in our minds. I stand on my first estimation of the argument of First Cause, and I am in good company.

Call me dogmatic, call me chicken, say I lost the debate- I really don't care.

I don't have the time for this - I should have been less of a smart-alec I guess- but no one has really given me any explanation of what this has to do with Mormon theology. I really don't want to go back to Platonic universals thank you very much.

We don't need it. Ostler says we don't need it- I haven't seen anyone who says we do.

[WalkerW]

For those interested, Feser's The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (St. Augustine's Press, 2008) is a very interesting and informative read.

It is the best material I've come across that almost persuadeth me to be a Trinitarian. Mainly because it stopped me from thinking of the First Cause as an event in the distant past. James Faulconer makes this clear as well:

In Metaphysics, Aristotle argues that without something outside the chain of explanations, there can be no actual explanation. I think that is an argument whose power is often overlooked. Aristotle calls this something the archē (αρχή), the "origin." It is tempting to think that the archē is either the first in the series of efficient or other causes or to think of it as the rst instance in a chain of rational explanations. However, to understand it in either of these ways is a mistake, for these two ways of understanding the archē are of a piece. Each reduces the archē to something with the same philosophical and perhaps ontological status as any other moment in the chain of explanation or account, the only difference being that, mysteriously, it is the first of those moments. Understood that way, Aristotle's argument makes no sense. However, as we see in Thomas Aquinas's use of Aristotle's argument in the proofs for God's existence, that is a misunderstanding of the argument. As I think Aquinas's use shows, Aristotle's point is that there must be something outside of or beyond or prior to any chain of reasons that grounds the chain in question, or there will be no real reasonings.There must be what Jacques Derrida calls the supplement, although the name itself indicates that one speaks from within a chain of reasons rather than from any external point of view. One speaks of what is beyond reason from within reason because there is no alternative.

Expanded, Aristotle's point is this: potentially every chain of reasons—every reasoning or explanation—is infinitely long. No matter where I stop, in principle someone could ask, "And what explains that?" Nevertheless, our chains of reasoning do not go on to infinity. Something stops them; something makes any particular stopping point of an adequate chain of reasoning the appropriate place to stop. That which constitutes the adequate stopping point of a chain of reasons, however, is itself not part of that chain. The reason for the explanation is outside the chain. (It could be, and often is, something as straightforward as a state of affairs, "the way things are.") Thus, the real origin or first cause of any chain of reasons is not the point at which we stop saying, "A because of B because of C," but something that is not itself part of the chain, something that we do not account for in our chain of reasons or causal account. It is the ground or origin, the archē, that gave rise to the chain (and can, therefore, also give rise to a chain with only one link, the conclusion). That which gives rise to a chain of reasons is something that cannot itself be explained; it is an "uncaused cause," to use the traditional terminology, and cannot be included in the chain of reasons.

Of course, as I pointed out earlier, in principle it is always possible to give an account of whatever we can point to, and, on reflection, we can always point to the origin of a chain of reasons. However, when we do so, we remove it from its status outside the chain of reasons. It ceases to be the origin of the chain and becomes one of the things in the chain—namely, its first element. But that means that something new has taken its place as the origin of the chain of reasons as the supplement—in other words, as the ground of explanations and reasons that is not itself part of the chain of reasons. Thus, if we take the Cartesian understanding of reason seriously, if we assume that the origin of reason is not supplemental to reason, that there is nothing outside the process of reason because reason is self-grounding, then we will have no way to stop giving reasons in any particular case. Without a supplement, an archē, every chain of reasons will go on to infinity and so will not do as a chain of reasons. An explanation that cannot come to an end is no explanation at all. If explanation requires a last word rather than a supplement, then the desire for the last word is implicitly the desire for garrulousness, not understanding.

This observation that the use of reason depends on something external to that use is a matter of common sense. As always, philosophers argue for what ordinary people know without having to argue it. (From the reports one sees in the news, which are not always to be trusted, one suspects that those in charge of deciding what kinds of social science research projects to fund with government money are all philosophers.) In addition, many more philosophers have known this than have not. Medieval Christians certainly knew that explanations require something beyond them and their processes. The various sorts of empiricists also knew it, as did the Romantics. Marxism maintains that reason has a supplement and, like Christianity, reminds us that ignoring that fact is seldom done in innocence. Plantinga gives us perhaps the best explanation in analytic philosophy of this truth that we all already know. Deconstruction begins with the assumption of this need for something more and then tries to show places in texts and philosophies at which that dependence on what is beyond reason shines through the text. Feminism allies itself with Marxism, although sometimes only implicitly, in recognizing both that reason is not self-grounding and that the claim that it is, is not innocent. Every ordinary member of the church knows that something more than reason is needed. But in spite of the fact that "everyone" knows, at least implicitly, that reason requires a supplement, I think it is also true that few people recognize that fact when they think about reason or faith and that fewer still recognize its implications or the questions it raises.

[ERayR]

I have asked it before and now ask it again. Why is it necessary to have a first cause? To me the only way to have a first cause is to divide infinity into segments then those segments can have a first cause but in the infinite scheme of things ther is no first cause. It has always been and will always be.

[mfbukowski]

For those interested, Feser's The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (St. Augustine's Press, 2008) is a very interesting and informative read.

It is the best material I've come across that almost persuadeth me to be a Trinitarian. Mainly because it stopped me from thinking of the First Cause as an event in the distant past. James Faulconer makes this clear as well:

Of course, as I pointed out earlier, in principle it is always possible to give an account of whatever we can point to, and, on reflection, we can always point to the origin of a chain of reasons. However, when we do so, we remove it from its status outside the chain of reasons. It ceases to be the origin of the chain and becomes one of the things in the chain—namely, its first element. But that means that something new has taken its place as the origin of the chain of reasons as the supplement—in other words, as the ground of explanations and reasons that is not itself part of the chain of reasons. Thus, if we take the Cartesian understanding of reason seriously, if we assume that the origin of reason is not supplemental to reason, that there is nothing outside the process of reason because reason is self-grounding, then we will have no way to stop giving reasons in any particular case. Without a supplement, an archē, every chain of reasons will go on to infinity and so will not do as a chain of reasons. An explanation that cannot come to an end is no explanation at all. If explanation requires a last word rather than a supplement, then the desire for the last word is implicitly the desire for garrulousness, not understanding.

My concern is that this attitude commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

We stop speaking of "causes" when we have found an adequate explanation which stops the inquiry.

What caused the bridge to fall? The cable broke.

Done. Inquiry stopped. Suppose we want to carry it farther. How did it break? Selwyn cut it with his torch.

At some point there will be an adequate explanation for the questioner- you could go on and say that Selwyn was a terrorist because his mother left his father at an early age etc- but eventually the questioner will say "Stop! That's all I need to know! I get it now"!

So how does this "adequate explanation" prove with logical necessity that God exists because it is a "First Cause"?

Sorry I am being so dumb about this. I just don't get it. But I have to admit I have not yet read the article yet- just your post

"Archē"? Uh oh, there we get back to Aristotle presuming that the word must be a "Thing".

[mfbukowski]

I have asked it before and now ask it again. Why is it necessary to have a first cause? To me the only way to have a first cause is to divide infinity into segments then those segments can have a first cause but in the infinite scheme of things ther is no first cause. It has always been and will always be.

Yeah, I have been asking this from post 1! I don't get it either.

[Mordecai]

Flew thinks God leaves evidence. I don't.

The evidence suggests otherwise. The fact that Flew, one of the most noted philosophers of our time, went from atheism to theism based solely on his philosophy of following the evidence is a good indication. I can second his observation, because the evidence is quite compelling, taken altogether. The BoMormon suggests God leaves evidence, too, e.g. the order of the universe. The spirit is evidence. The prophets are evidence. Jesus Christ's whole life is evidence. Of course God leaves evidence. Why would you think otherwise?

Yeah, I have been asking this from post 1! I don't get it either.

Cause and effect is in our common experience. If we reject cause and effect, we reject the experiences we have every day, which is to reject science or at least the underlying principle of science. While no one can prove there must be a first cause, we must also reject our common observations to believe such a thing. When I ask the question, "Why does anything exist at all instead of there just being nothing?" is your answer, "No reason whatsoever?" That's an answer I can't logically accept. Whatever explanation you give, it ultimately must come down to a first cause or the ultimate answer to why?

[mfbukowski]

The evidence suggests otherwise. The fact that Flew, one of the most noted philosophers of our time, went from atheism to theism based solely on his philosophy of following the evidence is a good indication. I can second his observation, because the evidence is quite compelling, taken altogether. The BoMormon suggests God leaves evidence, too, e.g. the order of the universe. The spirit is evidence. The prophets are evidence. Jesus Christ's whole life is evidence. Of course God leaves evidence. Why would you think otherwise?

You are right. I meant "objective evidence".

I think the only evidence which can prove God is our testimonies. There may be some "indications" but I would not call them "evidence".

[LeSellers]

Bummer! I am sorry for your pain and diminished capacity. May you heal swiftly and adapt well, and I HOPE the missing portion is far less than what remains of your digit, even though it be the "little" one....

Ouch.

Thanks for the good will and concern. I do appreciate it.

It was the very tip, about ³/₈" of the bone ("tuft") is somewhere on my shop floor.

Pain medication is helping, but it still aches a little. The chief issue when typing is the bandage-induced clumsiness.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the good will and concern. I do appreciate it.

It was the very tip, about ³/₈" of the bone ("tuft") is somewhere on my shop floor.

Pain medication is helping, but it still aches a little. The chief issue when typing is the bandage-induced clumsiness.

Lehi

That's gotta hurt. Lotsa nerves in your fingertips, obviously!

Hope you're "feeling" better

[Calm]

Thanks for the good will and concern. I do appreciate it.

It was the very tip, about ³/₈" of the bone ("tuft") is somewhere on my shop floor.

Pain medication is helping, but it still aches a little. The chief issue when typing is the bandage-induced clumsiness.

Lehi

I put a hefty slice into my finger once with the top of a pineapple can...bled all over and on another occasion jammed a piece of wood about three times the thickness of a toothpick under my fingernail that was too soft for me to pull out and any pressure on it made me go woozy, had to go to the emergency room to numb the finger enough to cut the nail to get the wood out. Fingertips are very sensitive. Keep taking the pain medication as needed, it will heal faster than if you try and 'man it out'.

PS: I've been told you're not a real carpenter until you're missing at least one fingertip or nail.

[Mordecai]

You are right. I meant "objective evidence".

I think the only evidence which can prove God is our testimonies. There may be some "indications" but I would not call them "evidence".

The order of the universe is not subjective, nor is the existence of prophets, i.e. expert witnesses. The Book of Mormon has compelling objective evidence in support of its ancient origins, e.g. Nahom. That's objective evidence for God. Not proof, but objective evidence, i.e. reasons to believe.

[TAO]

I started a similar thread a good while back. What does Mormon theology say regarding the Aristotelian concept of a first cause? Is there room for it or not? Is God the "first cause" in the Mormon view? Can He be as a physical being?

Thoughts?

I don't believe in a first cause, nah... it wouldn't make sense to me with the way my variable mind works. Of course, that doesn't mean God isn't God - it just means that he is similar to us, I guess. Very different, but similar all the same.

[mfbukowski]

A "cause" is an explanation, not a thing.