The First Cause

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for that.

Ok... so it appears to me that you're saying that humans are self-existing equally with God?

I am saying nothing like that. We are in no way equal with God.

I am quoting Mormon theology which is that intelligences are co-eternal with God. I have no clue what "self-existing" even means.

Please tell me how something can "exist" by itself? Such a being could not even know it exists, because one must have "non-existence" to contrast with "existence".

Language cannot describe self-existence intelligibly- because language is social. It is like wondering about the color of virtue- virtue does not have color.

The word "exists" is itself language- and the word would not itself "exist" if it were not for language! I cannot even imagine what "self-existent" means.

Being alone in a universe of nothing- seeing nothing, feeling nothing, conscious of nothing- what does that even mean?

To be is to be social. That is the meaning of "I am". Those are WORDS spoken to another entity- in this case, Moses. God was revealing to Moses that "He IS"- that he exists, or those words would have no meaning whatsoever.

[Hughes]

I am saying nothing like that. We are in no way equal with God.

I am quoting Mormon theology which is that intelligences are co-eternal with God. I have no clue what "self-existing" even means.

Please tell me how something can "exist" by itself? Such a being could not even know it exists, because one must have "non-existence" to contrast with "existence".

Language cannot describe self-existence intelligibly- because language is social. It is like wondering about the color of virtue- virtue does not have color.

The word "exists" is itself language- and the word would not itself "exist" if it were not for language! I cannot even imagine what "self-existent" means.

Being alone in a universe of nothing- seeing nothing, feeling nothing, conscious of nothing- what does that even mean?

To be is to be social. That is the meaning of "I am". Those are WORDS spoken to another entity- in this case, Moses. God was revealing to Moses that "He IS"- that he exists, or those words would have no meaning whatsoever.

Ignoring for now the of meaning of existing.

What do you mean then by the phrase: "we are co-creators with God."?

You must not be meaning we created the Heavens and the Earth with him? (or them?)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ignoring for now the of meaning of existing.

What do you mean then by the phrase: "we are co-creators with God."?

You must not be meaning we created the Heavens and the Earth with him? (or them?)

Co-creators does not appear in MFbukowski's post that you quoted. I suggest slowing down a bit and making sure you know what is being talked about.

I do note that he did talk about it in a previous post.

[ELF1024]

You will get various answers to this, and they all center around the definition of "always".

I personally believe that time (for us) began with the big bang- but I also believe that the big bang resulted from pre-existing matter- this theory is known as the "big crunch"- that this universe is cyclical. It expands, then contracts into a black hole, then re-explodes into a new universe.

I think this fits well with a Mormon cosmology.

I thought they had disproved the cyclic "Bang/Crunch" theory of the Universe. I could be wrong. I just seem to recall reading something in the news about it at some time.

IF I remember correctly, and that's a big IF, they had determined by observations that the Universe was still expanding and at a higher rate/velocity than expected. I think that is one of the factors that has added to the idea of dark matter, or dark energy. However, once again, that depends on my remembering correctly, and not confusing reality with a Sci-Fi novel I read.

However, there is also the idea that each black hole has a "Universe" bubble on it's opposite side, and that the Big Bang is just the Black Hole creating it's own space/time envelope with matter/energy sucked up from a parent universe.

I'm not really sure if it matters if there is one ever expanding universe, the bang/crunch, or millions of universes spawned off parent universes.

If you take into account the idea of the Multiverse/Quantum Theory and that things exist in parallel to us at all times, it gets to be even more of a mind bending headache.

[WalkerW]

Sounds like some mix of Scholastic Modalism to me.

Read your Aquinas.

That's 800 year old philosophy.

I recently picked up Edward Feser, Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide (Oneworld, 2009).

[WalkerW]

Please tell me how something can "exist" by itself? Such a being could not even know it exists, because one must have "non-existence" to contrast with "existence".

Language cannot describe self-existence intelligibly- because language is social. It is like wondering about the color of virtue- virtue does not have color.

The word "exists" is itself language- and the word would not itself "exist" if it were not for language! I cannot even imagine what "self-existent" means.

Being alone in a universe of nothing- seeing nothing, feeling nothing, conscious of nothing- what does that even mean?

Very thought provoking. I hadn't thought of it quite like this. Existence, it seems, of necessity requires separate, distinct, co-eternal, conscious intelligences.

[WalkerW]

To be is to be social. That is the meaning of "I am". Those are WORDS spoken to another entity- in this case, Moses. God was revealing to Moses that "He IS"- that he exists, or those words would have no meaning whatsoever.

In E's account of the first meeting between Moses and the God who speaks to him from the burning bush, Yahweh reveals his name: "Ehyeh asher ehyeh": "I am what I am." Later Jews and Christians would interpret this to mean that God was being itself, He Who Is. But E did not yet think is these metaphysical terms. In his narrative, God may have been saying something far simpler. Ehyeh asher ehyeh is a Hebrew idiom that expresses deliberate vagueness. The remark "they went where they went," for example, means "I have no idea where they went." So when Moses asked God who he was, Yahweh in effect replied: "Never mind who I am!" (Karen Armstrong, The Case for God, Knopf, 2009: pg. 39.)

[mfbukowski]

Ignoring for now the of meaning of existing.

What do you mean then by the phrase: "we are co-creators with God."?

You must not be meaning we created the Heavens and the Earth with him? (or them?)

I suppose the article is too difficult to understand or doesn't explain it well.

The simplest I can make it is to quote that perhaps silly little line that people use: I believe that if a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, it doesn't make a "sound". It may cause vibrations which affect other things in the area, but because we cannot know that, for all practical purposes that is not "happening" in a human context.

How many trees fell of natural causes in the state of Alaska today between noon and 6 PM local time? Was it one or none or several thousand? We can estimate, but it is unknowable. One cannot even answer the question except with probable estimates.

We can only KNOW what exists if it is measurable in a human context. If I happened to be in Alaska today between those times, and I heard one fall, I could at least say "I know for a fact that at least one tree fell", and I would be right. I would be certain that at least one tree fell in Alaska today, un-perceived by anyone but me.

My presence in effect creates that "event" and turns it into a "fact", otherwise it would be a non-event and unknowable. Remember facts exist in language- ideas exist in language, and with out some kind of human reporter, there are no facts.

Light waves of different wavelengths stream into my eyes as reflected from the sun, and my eyes and optic nerves take that chaos of lightwaves and order that "matter unorganized" into chairs, tables, computer screens, cars out the window, etc.

I could not know that any of those things existed unless my mind created those pictures, or my ears heard their sounds, etc. My mind "creates" those perceptions which make up my world of experience, and experience is all we can know about what is "real"

If one is a true, radical empiricist, one can only speak about what we see and feel and experience, and not some "underlying reality" other than what we experience.

So in a very real sense, we create reality in our minds- our minds organize the chaos of perception into what makes "reality" for us.

And I believe that that is indeed the way God creates as well. His mind orders "matter unorganized" and thereby creates world(s)

So in that sense, we are co-creators with God, of our own "little world" until we "grow up" to be just like him, and learn to create (organize) "big worlds"

That is about as simple as I can explain it.

[mfbukowski]

Very thought provoking. I hadn't thought of it quite like this. Existence, it seems, of necessity requires separate, distinct, co-eternal, conscious intelligences.

I certainly think so, and so does Whitehead.

One could put that same notion into less metaphysical language in a different context, and that is to say that there can be no "private language". That is the way Wittgenstein, at least in his later philosophy, would say it.

Language (the word "exist" is in language of course)requires at least two people to create a context to give it any meaning or the word/thought/idea has no more meaning than "xlytop". It is literally "non-sense"; it is something which cannot be sensed. It is no-thing!

[Hughes]

Hughes:

Precisely what ability is God lacking in order to qualify as "almighty" in your book?

The ability to create ex nihilo? I hold that that is the same as making a rock so big that he cannot lift it.

Your God can't do that either. Both are contradictions. Something does not come from nothing. Read the Stanford quote.

Reality is social- that means that all we can know is human experience- we all create reality culturally.

If you don't understand that principle, you cannot understand Mormonism, sorry. If you don't understand it, I can't debate it with you; you are stuck in an old paradigm of metaphysics and won't learn about any other way of seeing it, much less able to discuss it.

So, I asked, following QB's question, "So, is this "Almighty God" in your view (LDS) responsible for matter always existing, including our very individual "intelligences"

You replied,"You will get various answers to this, and they all center around the definition of "always"."

and later:

"But in another sense, I think that matter and intelligence are eternal in the sense of "existing" from one big bang to another.

So intelligences are co-eternal and are on God's time line, as is matter. Those constitute the raw materials out of which universes are made, again, one big bang to one big crunch might represent one "generation" of being God- of an intelligence which has perhaps waited and developed during several cycles, watching and learning from his "elders" how all this is done."

But, later portion above wasn't in your original answer, it was edited later and added, so I missed it. Had I read it I probably would have concluded that "intelligences are co-eternal and are on [The Mormon] God's time line, as is matter."

And that would have answered my question. But, since I didn't see it I asked it in a different way:

"In other words, how could God be "almighty God" if he isn't responsible for all matter?"

Then you quoted your stanford article and stated that "we are co-creators with God."

So, I asked about that.

Then you responded with: "Is Donald Trump responsible for creation of the Trump Tower even though he did not create the iron ore from which the steel was made?

God has "always" existed- read my post."

Which now that I've re-read your post after it was edited, which was after I quoted it and replied to it. Now I understand that God and Matter and Intelligences are all co-eternal, in your view.

Then you said, "Precisely what ability is God lacking in order to qualify as "almighty" in your book?

The ability to create ex nihilo? I hold that that is the same as making a rock so big that he cannot lift it.

Your God can't do that either. Both are contradictions. Something does not come from nothing."

This is interesting I suppose. The question of origins is what this thread is about, right? Where did matter come from?

You say it's co-eternal with God, I say no. God created it.

Your argument is that It's a contradiction to posit that God created matter, similar to God creating a rock he can't lift. I disagree. You haven't demonstrated it to be a contradiction at all. You've stated that something doesn't come from nothing. But who said God was nothing?

Then you replied to Vance with another quote from the article, and commented: "So the God of Creedal Christianity cannot know the world of change in which we live, much less be what you CALL "almighty".

But he is what I CALL "almighty"- able to do and know all that is knowable and do-able. "

I'm curious why you think that the God of "creedal Christianity" cannot know the world of change in which we live? I don't think that is accurate at all.

In a nut shell, the reason I wouldn't view the Mormon God, as the Almighty God is because he is not seen as the source for all Matter and Intelligences.

[WalkerW]

I certainly think so, and so does Whitehead.

One could put that same notion into less metaphysical language in a different context, and that is to say that there can be no "private language". That is the way Wittgenstein, at least in his later philosophy, would say it.

Language (the word "exist" is in language of course)requires at least two people to create a context to give it any meaning or the word/thought/idea has no more meaning than "xlytop". It is literally "non-sense"; it is something which cannot be sensed. It is no-thing!

What about those who don't have language? For example, newborns.

[mfbukowski]

What about those who don't have language? For example, newborns.

I don't understand the question. You can't talk to newborns, yet trust me, at least the mom has experienced their "existence"- I can guarantee that part.

[mfbukowski]

I don't have much time, so I will respond to this part first, and the rest tomorrow, or as soon as I can

Then you replied to Vance with another quote from the article, and commented: "So the God of Creedal Christianity cannot know the world of change in which we live, much less be what you CALL "almighty".

But he is what I CALL "almighty"- able to do and know all that is knowable and do-able. "

I'm curious why you think that the God of "creedal Christianity" cannot know the world of change in which we live? I don't think that is accurate at all.

I don't know how you missed it- the argument was posted right there just before your comment. In fact the conclusion of the quote speaks directly to why the traditional God cannot know the world of change:

In the view of process theism, the denial of real relations in God renders classical theism paradoxical to the point of incoherence. According to classical theism, God has perfect knowledge of a contingent and changing world, yet nothing in God could be other than it is. The one condition, however, contradicts the other (cf. Hartshorne 1948, 13-14; Shields 1983; Viney 2007b). If any event is contingent then it could be otherwise—for example, this bird at this place and time is singing rather than sleeping; but if the event could be otherwise, then God's knowledge of the event could be otherwise—knowing this bird at this place and time as singing rather than as sleeping. The contingency implied for God's knowing is not that God might have been ignorant of something but that the thing that God knows might have been different. An infallible knower necessarily knows whatever exists; it does not follow, however, that what exists is necessary unless one adds the premise, taken from classical theism, that nothing in God could be other than it is. Process theism jettisons the premise that there is nothing contingent in God. The only other non-atheistic alternatives, say process theists, are to follow Aristotle and deny that God knows the world or to follow Spinoza and deny that nothing in God or in the world could be other than it is (Hartshorne 1976, 12). What is impossible is a God with no contingent aspects knowing a contingent world.

[Hughes]

I don't have much time, so I will respond to this part first, and the rest tomorrow, or as soon as I can

I don't know how you missed it- the argument was posted right there just before your comment. In fact the conclusion of the quote speaks directly to why the traditional God cannot know the world of change:

I read your quote last time, and it says the same as your statement only in different words. Neither is a proof.

"What is impossible is a God with no contingent aspects knowing a contingent world."

Sorry, simply stating it doesn't prove it. Like I said, I disagree.

If there's something about the argument that you find compelling, that I'm missing, then do me a favor and please by all means break it down for me.

[mfbukowski]

I read your quote last time, and it says the same as your statement only in different words. Neither is a proof.

"What is impossible is a God with no contingent aspects knowing a contingent world."

Sorry, simply stating it doesn't prove it. Like I said, I disagree.

If there's something about the argument that you find compelling, that I'm missing, then do me a favor and please by all means break it down for me.

I will try exactly once more, and then give up.

It is a variation on the free will/determinism problem.

Allow me to pretend that hold the positions that Whitehead is arguing against. So when I say "you" below, I don't mean it personally- I am using that as a stand in for the position Whitehead is arguing against, but make it more personal for you. Perhaps it actually works for you because you do not believe in free will and that we are all fated to be exactly what we are and do what we will- that we are predestined to either heaven and hell before we are born. If you believe that 1- there is no reason to be on this board, unless you are just here to make fun of those who are already predestined to go to hell, and 2- we have nothing to discuss because I cannot fathom that that view would be correct- why would God create so many of us, just to condemn us to go to hell?

Is God perfect and unchangeable? You would say yes.

Then what he knows is perfect and unchageable, right? You would say yes.

So then whatever he already knows will happen IS going to happen, right? You would say yes.

So whatever IS going to happen cannot happen any other way- it could not be otherwise, right?

Then we have no free choice, and the world could not be otherwise than it is.

So no one can choose to be saved- because they cannot do otherwise than what God knows they will do.

Therefore God condemns people to hell for doing what they otherwise could not do, and created them out of nothing for no purpose whatsoever than condemn them to hell.

So either it is true that God created us from nothing for no purpose but condemn us to hell, or God did not do that, and God therefore is not "almighty" in your definition, because in fact THINGS CAN BE OTHERWISE.

But you might say: "But God loves us, and can answer our prayers, and gives us a choice to be saved or not- otherwise there is no point in ministering and trying to save people!"

But if God can hear and answer prayers, and allow us to be saved or not, he is not eternal and unchanging. If that is true, there must be a change in God himself- if he allows us to change he must himself change- the relationship he had with us before we were saved is different than it is after we are saved. That change in us makes a change in God himself- a change in our relationship

That is the argument. It is contradictory for God to have a relationship with his children and be unchanging.

So the God of process and the God of Mormons does in fact interact with his children, and does change and progress.

[mfbukowski]

Very thought provoking. I hadn't thought of it quite like this. Existence, it seems, of necessity requires separate, distinct, co-eternal, conscious intelligences.

Like perhaps a Father and Mother united in Love?

"God is love"

That occurred to me this morning. Christ and the Church? Becoming "one flesh"? John 17, and Revelation 3 - becoming one with Him as they are together and sitting together in His throne?

We really are one Family.

How could others not see this and worry about things like prophets with faults?

[Mordecai]

In E's account of the first meeting between Moses and the God who speaks to him from the burning bush, Yahweh reveals his name: "Ehyeh asher ehyeh": "I am what I am."...

Seems like I was reading something on this very board that suggested the correct translation might be, "I am what I am becoming." For me, that fits better into my ideas about how we become eternal beings after mortal life, existing into the past and future without beginning or end. So, in my view, Jehovah was Jesus just as much at the time of Moses as He was when He visited the Nephites. That translation, from that perspective, makes a lot of sense to me.

[mfbukowski]

Oh- and I promised to return to ex-nihilo and how it is self contradicting:

Per the Stanford quote we are discussing- and already posted:

Implicit in traditional theism's doctrine of creation are the ideas that God's creative act and God's knowledge of the world are non-temporal. Augustine, for example, in the Confessions (book XI, chapters 13 and 14), considers it nonsensical to ask what God was doing before the creation of the world; God, in creating the universe, brings time—and with it, relations of before and after—into existence; thus, it is no more meaningful to ask what came before the first moment of time than it is to ask what is north of the north pole.

For ex-nihilo to be true, God would have to exist "before time" which is impossible as shown above. I cannot conceive of non-temporal neither than anyone else

Any way you see it, God to "exist" must be in time and be relational- since existence itself requires relations- imo of course.

[Hughes]

I will try exactly once more, and then give up.

It is a variation on the free will/determinism problem.

Allow me to pretend that hold the positions that Whitehead is arguing against. So when I say "you" below, I don't mean it personally- I am using that as a stand in for the position Whitehead is arguing against, but make it more personal for you. Perhaps it actually works for you because you do not believe in free will and that we are all fated to be exactly what we are and do what we will- that we are predestined to either heaven and hell before we are born. If you believe that 1- there is no reason to be on this board, unless you are just here to make fun of those who are already predestined to go to hell, and 2- we have nothing to discuss because I cannot fathom that that view would be correct- why would God create so many of us, just to condemn us to go to hell?

Is God perfect and unchangeable? You would say yes.

Then what he knows is perfect and unchageable, right? You would say yes.

So then whatever he already knows will happen IS going to happen, right? You would say yes.

So whatever IS going to happen cannot happen any other way- it could not be otherwise, right?

Then we have no free choice, and the world could not be otherwise than it is.

So no one can choose to be saved- because they cannot do otherwise than what God knows they will do.

Therefore God condemns people to hell for doing what they otherwise could not do, and created them out of nothing for no purpose whatsoever than condemn them to hell.

So either it is true that God created us from nothing for no purpose but condemn us to hell, or God did not do that, and God therefore is not "almighty" in your definition, because in fact THINGS CAN BE OTHERWISE.

But you might say: "But God loves us, and can answer our prayers, and gives us a choice to be saved or not- otherwise there is no point in ministering and trying to save people!"

But if God can hear and answer prayers, and allow us to be saved or not, he is not eternal and unchanging. If that is true, there must be a change in God himself- if he allows us to change he must himself change- the relationship he had with us before we were saved is different than it is after we are saved. That change in us makes a change in God himself- a change in our relationship

That is the argument. It is contradictory for God to have a relationship with his children and be unchanging.

So the God of process and the God of Mormons does in fact interact with his children, and does change and progress.

I understand. Your characterization of the position I take is inaccurate however.

Here you said, "So no one can choose to be saved- because they cannot do otherwise than what God knows they will do.

Therefore God condemns people to hell for doing what they otherwise could not do, and created them out of nothing for no purpose whatsoever than condemn them to hell.

So either it is true that God created us from nothing for no purpose but condemn us to hell, or God did not do that, and God therefore is not "almighty" in your definition, because in fact THINGS CAN BE OTHERWISE."

No. God gives all free will to choose. His foreknowledge of our choice doesn't determine our choice, however. That's where the train got off the tracks, so to speak.

For example, if God determined our choices, we'd have no free will (as you pointed out). And also, if God determined our choices there'd be no love relationship between God and man, because at it's core is free will. So, in God's wisdom, he allows us the freedom to choose.

Now your argument connects God's foreknowledge of our choices with his determining what those choices will be. This connection can't logically be made unless you support it somehow.

Let's say, by way of example, that I am dropping a golf ball off the Space Needle in Seattle. It takes exactly 9.67 seconds for it to hit the ground. I've done it 50 times and on the 51st time I can tell you that it will take 9.67 seconds for it to hit the ground. I know this before it happens. But, this foreknowledge of mine doesn't determine the speed or timing of the ball hitting the ground. My foreknowledge is based on my knowledge of the situation, not because I'm controlling the situation.

The same is true with God and his foreknowledge of us and what we will do.

[Hughes]

But you might say: "But God loves us, and can answer our prayers, and gives us a choice to be saved or not- otherwise there is no point in ministering and trying to save people!"

But if God can hear and answer prayers, and allow us to be saved or not, he is not eternal and unchanging. If that is true, there must be a change in God himself- if he allows us to change he must himself change- the relationship he had with us before we were saved is different than it is after we are saved. That change in us makes a change in God himself- a change in our relationship

That is the argument. It is contradictory for God to have a relationship with his children and be unchanging.

So the God of process and the God of Mormons does in fact interact with his children, and does change and progress.

I think this is a misunderstanding of God's unchangeable nature and his relationship with us.

He doesn't change this is true, and he doesn't need to because he knows beforehand what we will do or say. But, as I said before, that foreknowledge doesn't determine our actions.

So, does he interact with us? Of course, and he knew from before the foundations of the Universe were laid, what those interactions would be, with each of us.

[urroner]

I think this is a misunderstanding of God's unchangeable nature and his relationship with us.

He doesn't change this is true, and he doesn't need to because he knows beforehand what we will do or say. But, as I said before, that foreknowledge doesn't determine our actions.

So, does he interact with us? Of course, and he knew from before the foundations of the Universe were laid, what those interactions would be, with each of us.

So if God knew where we were going to go before He created us, why did He create us? Can't God change the future or is He limited to what the future forces Him to do? Why would He, being a God of love and true compassion, be so eager to condemn billions of souls to eternal damnation of endless punishment? What's the purpose of our creation? Why did God even create us? Does He need us for some reason? Does God need anything external to Himself or is He totally self-contained?

[Hughes]

Oh- and I promised to return to ex-nihilo and how it is self contradicting:

Per the Stanford quote we are discussing- and already posted:

For ex-nihilo to be true, God would have to exist "before time" which is impossible as shown above. I cannot conceive of non-temporal neither than anyone else

Any way you see it, God to "exist" must be in time and be relational- since existence itself requires relations- imo of course.

Right, so you see God, matter, time (and intelligences) as being co-eternal.

I don't. As Genesis says, in the beginning God. Saying, that God was there to start the beginning (temporal time reference).

And God says, Rev. 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

And Jesus says, Rev. 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

God exists both inside and outside of time, at the same time.

[urroner]

Right, so you see God, matter, time (and intelligences) as being co-eternal.

I don't. As Genesis says, in the beginning God. Saying, that God was there to start the beginning (temporal time reference).

And God says, Rev. 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

And Jesus says, Rev. 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

God exists both inside and outside of time, at the same time.

I'm telling a story about the American Revolution and I start out the story with "In the beginning," does that mean that it was before the existence of a temporal dimension? Is the creation story in Genesis a scientific account of the creation? Even the ancient Hebrews believe that God created the world out of existing materials? Maybe they, who wrote Genesis, were wrong.

[Hughes]

So if God knew where we were going to go before He created us, why did He create us? Can't God change the future or is He limited to what the future forces Him to do? Why would He, being a God of love and true compassion, be so eager to condemn billions of souls to eternal damnation of endless punishment? What's the purpose of our creation? Why did God even create us? Does He need us for some reason? Does God need anything external to Himself or is He totally self-contained?

God needs nothing from us. His goal is to share the love that is contained in the Godhead.

There is only one way to share true love. And that's to give your created beings freewill. Anything short of freewill based love isn't love at all.

However, the problem is that if you give freewill you have given the ability to "not" choose love of God/Creator, by definition. And so we see many who don't choose to love God, and that's their choice. God will say to them, "your will be done..." and since they don't choose to be with God, God honors their choice. If God forced them to be with him, that would be Hell for them as well.

So, no. God is the only "I am" or self existing being, in need of nothing or no one.

[urroner]

God exists both inside and outside of time, at the same time.

Can you logically explain to me how something can exist outside of all temporal dimensions and still be able to do anything?