Trinity

[jo1952]

The premise is that no other infinite *beings* could exist. As if they did the wouldn't fill all space, but only a portion, and hence not be infinite. Therefore, only one infinite being can exist.

You don't have to believe that an infinite God exists. And there's no way to prove or disprove such, given that it would take an infinite being to do so, which logically would prove, not disprove the premise. And since I know I am not one, I am inadequate to prove such a being exists. I do believe he does and is however.

Hi Hughes,

I agree that we cannot prove God exists, though there are those who claim they have used their words and their logic to "prove" that He does, even pointing to an empty tomb as evidence of their "proof"; and some make the same claim that they have "proven" that He does not exist....sigh.

Your comment about no other infinite "beings" could exist caught my eye. Where does mankind fit in with this belief? Once we are resurrected, do you believe that those who are saved get to join God inside of His infinite existence? If so, wouldn't that remove some part of His infinite space from Him by virtue of the fact that we would then be in it and He is no longer the only Being there? IOW, for us to be in His presence, do we take up some of the space of infinity?

Can something that it is not eternal become partially eternal at the moment they enter eternity? Or does that turn "eternal" or "eternity" into a false dichotomy? What are your thoughts about this?

Best regards,

jo

[Vance]

I was using your analogy, which you now are calling flawed.

LOL

So now you are blaming me for your misuse of my analogy?

I don't care to play games.

Yet that is what you are doing.

You want to declare yourself the winner, be my guest. You're the winner!

Well, if you can't engage my arguments then I suppose I can declare myself the winner.

As to God's presence.

Psalm 139:7

Where can I go from your Spirit?

Where can I flee from your presence?

8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;

if I make my bed in the depths [Hebrew Sheol], you are there.

9If I rise on the wings of the dawn,

if I settle on the far side of the sea,

10even there your hand will guide me,

your right hand will hold me fast.

11If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me

and the light become night around me,”

12even the darkness will not be dark to you;

the night will shine like the day,

for darkness is as light to you.

Ok, so you are looking to the murderous adulterer David for doctrine on the nature of God?

Well, if that is the best you can do.

I view this as David expressing his own inability to escape his guilty conscience.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I view this as David expressing his own inability to escape his guilty conscience.

You missed an easy one here. If h*** is the separation from God and God is every where then how can one truly be in h***?

[altersteve]

You missed an easy one here. If h*** is the separation from God and God is every where then how can one truly be in h***?

This makes even more sense in light of the LDS doctrine of h***, which is a place where there is no fire or brimstone, but is instead a place of cold, darkness, silence, and spiritual, emotional, and mental anguish. That sounds much worse than the traditional Christian view. I'd rather feel pain than not be able to feel, see, hear, taste, smell, say, or do anything at all. I don't think God would be present in such a terrible place.

Edited July 22, 2011 by altersteve

[saemo]

Christian doctrine is, God is the creator of all things, including time and space. Therefore, He exists outside of that which He Created. God being omnipresent is easily explained by this doctrine. God is not in time with us. This is one of the defining aspects of the miracle of the Incarnation. God became Man, and dwelt among us!

I think LDS understand the concept of separating oneself from God. h*** being a state, rather than a place.

Peace.

[Nathair/|\]

IF God is infinite and fills all with his presence, there can be only one.

If I turn on a light-bulb and fill a room with it's light, can I therefore not turn on another light-bulb and add more light to the room?

[saemo]

If I turn on a light-bulb and fill a room with it's light, can I therefore not turn on another light-bulb and add more light to the room?

Jumping in here....this implies that God can increase. He is everything, always has been, always will be. That is the nature of God, and so the concept of increase can not apply (and is not logical).

Peace.

[Nathair/|\]

Jumping in here....this implies that God can increase. He is everything, always has been, always will be. That is the nature of God, and so the concept of increase can not apply (and is not logical).

Peace.

Did my first light-bulb increase in my analogy? If so, how? But instead of increasing the light, perhaps I should have asked if there would be space in the room for the light from the second bulb.

[jo1952]

Jumping in here....this implies that God can increase. He is everything, always has been, always will be. That is the nature of God, and so the concept of increase can not apply (and is not logical).

Peace.

Hello Saemo!

I see that you have taken a strict legalistic view about God. I would ask that you entertain the logic of what I am about to offer.

I believe that it is the attributes of God which are unchanging, eternal, infinite, etc. Generally, most believers place this only in the spiritual realm of God because He exists outside of our physical dimension. I sometimes refer to the earth's allotted physical existence of "time" (as God's "time" is not reckoned in the way we can identify with) as being inside of a "bubble" within eternity. So, eternity continues forever and ever outside of the "bubble" we currently exist in.

I would not put any limits on the "size" of eternity as effected by the un-numbered physical worlds which have been created, as they will all be inside of their own bubble, OR outside of their temporal bubble. From a logical viewpoint, what IS inside of eternity is always changing; as the allotted bubbles are created, reach the measure of their creation, and then become reborn from a temporal state into an everlasting to everlasting perfected and immortal state and are no longer within their bubble....or are they? (I don't have an answer.)

Now, let us consider ourselves. We have a body of flesh which is the mortal temple of our spirit. When we are resurrected, we will receive glorified immortal bodies. Our existence, at least from the orthodox belief, is that we then enter eternity. Does our entry into eternity not have some type of effect upon eternity? Of course, I believe that we are eternal beings to begin with who have left the spiritual realm and temporarily entered a physical realm. Once our mortal body dies, our spirit leaves the physical realm and is able to experience the spiritual realm which has always been there; we just could not see it while in our body of flesh. Once resurrected and in receipt of our immortal body, we simply continues our spirit's eternal existence. It is only our "form" of existence which alters, but our eternal existence has never ended (or begun). Our first "form" of existence was as "intelligence" which co-existed with God. He is the one who them formed our intelligence into a "spirit" form, and so forth. Christ only created our physical body. I am digressing from my point, though.

Jesus teaches that we can become "one" with Him; even as He and the Father are "one". We can try to see what this looks like just from the aspect of what "love" is. We are taught that God IS love. When we become "one" with Christ, we also become even as He and the Father are "one". So, it seems logical to believe WE will also become "one" with Father. When we become perfected, I believe we will also be able to love, just as God loves; if for no other reason than we have become "one" with Him. If you do not believe we become "one" with Father as well, then just view what becoming "one" with Christ may look like. Have we not increased the volume of "love" which is at least part of Christ? He is the same substance as Father, even if He is a separate Person of the Trinity One God. If His love has been increased by us, then the quantity of love that previously existed, has increased. Yet the attribute of His love is the same as it ever was; thus His attribute never changed.

I do not think that we are the only "earth" or "world" that is or has or will experience what we are experiencing. Otherwise, what God has "done" from beginning to end will have changed. But this does not diminish His "Being", or "change" who or what He IS. To make God legalistic is to place Him inside of a box which man has constructed in his own mind in order to try to understand God. It is a way for man to place a stake in the ground and conclude that "this" is what God is. However, how is it that WE, as we become "one" with God, cannot help but increase or have some type of effect on God? By virtue of "creating", God changes and effects what He Himself exists in; or, at the very least the amount love that exists. To "return" to God and be able to be in His presence, also gives me a view that logically states that our "presence" in His presence has changed what exists in His presence. Please also note that we "return" to His presence; we are not taught that we are coming into His presence (as though it were the first time), but rather, we "return".

Just some thoughts.

Peace to you,

jo

[cdowis]

As to God's presence.

Psalm 139:7

Where can I go from your Spirit?

Where can I flee from your presence?

8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;

if I make my bed in the depths [Hebrew Sheol], you are there.

9If I rise on the wings of the dawn,

if I settle on the far side of the sea,

10even there your hand will guide me,

your right hand will hold me fast.

11If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me

and the light become night around me,”

12even the darkness will not be dark to you;

the night will shine like the day,

for darkness is as light to you.

1. Another point on your cubic box analogy. You are using one false doctrine (omnipresence) to justify another.

2. Regarding Psalms, not only do we find "wings of the dawn", we also find the right hand of the Lord holding him fast. If you wish to use this, you must also find evidence that the Lord is in human form, that we truly were created in His image. If you agree that the "right hand" is not physical, then the presence is not physically (spiritual or otherwise) filling the universe. He is merely stating that we cannot escape his hand nor his influence.

He speaks and the universe responds, no matter how far away from Kolob. Christ demonstrated that principle that by healing the son while he was in a distant village.

Edited July 23, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Christian doctrine is, God is the creator of all things, including time and space. Therefore, He exists outside of that which He Created. God being omnipresent is easily explained by this doctrine. God is not in time with us. This is one of the defining aspects of the miracle of the Incarnation. God became Man, and dwelt among us!

I think LDS understand the concept of separating oneself from God. h*** being a state, rather than a place.

Peace.

Logical, but it's based on a false premise. It goes back to the old paradox "Can God create a stone so large that He cannot lift it."

The LDS response is, No, because He cannot violate natural law. He did not create natural law, but uses it to do his work and fulfill his purposes. He is bound by law -- he cannot break his promises, he cannot transform Satan into Michael.

Edited July 23, 2011 by cdowis

[Vance]

You missed an easy one here. If h*** is the separation from God and God is every where then how can one truly be in h***?

That's the question I asked Hughes in #147.

[Hughes]

Notice that David asks "where can I go from your presence?" the implication is that we can't go anywhere to escape his presence, not even Sheol. I agree bringham's teaching is in conflict with this biblical doctrine.

As far as how many beings the LDS believe in, I'm simply observing more than one.

I find it amusing, Hughes, how you are comfortable with telling us how many gods we believe in.

You also said that the Trinity is not three beings. So Jesus is not a being? He's not a person? Regarding your citation of the Psalm that indicates God's omnipresence, Brigham Young said:

This conversation just makes me realize how little you truly understand of LDS theology, Hughes. I suggest that you sincerely seek to know what we believe before you start labeling us as being "polytheistic," "un-Christian," or whatever else you think we are.

[Vance]

Notice that David asks "where can I go from your presence?" the implication is that we can't go anywhere to escape his presence, not even Sheol.

Is that really the implication? Did God answer the question? The fact that David couldn't escape his own guilt doesn't require God to be omnipresent.

So, God occupied Hitler's heart? He occupies h***? If God's presence is heaven, then there is no h***. If He occupies the heart of every man then whence cometh evil?

You continue to avoid the questions because the answers destroy your theology.

I agree bringham's teaching is in conflict with this biblical doctrine.

Nah! Just your misinterpretation of it.

[zerinus]

Um, are you saying that Moses was exalted to Godhood in the celestial kingdom at the time that God spoke to him in Exodus 7:1? That doesn't make any sense.

The answer is No; but just as there was in the Bible more than one (real) god; so likewise in Mormon theology there is more than one (real) god.

Moses, whatever kind of "god" he was, was a real god. He was not an idol. He had real power given him over Pharaoh. He single-handedly defeated Pharaoh and his mighty army, without having any army of his own to fight for him. Pharaoh was a mighty ruler, and his army the most powerful on earth. No other nation or army could have withstood against Pharaoh and his army. Yet Moses fought against him and defeated him single-handedly with nothing more in his hand than a stick. You couldn't frighten a dog with a stick, never mind defeat Pharaoh's army! But that is what Moses was able to accomplish, because God had made him a god over Pharaoh and his mighty army.

So just as in the Bible there is more than one (real) god, in addition to the one Great God; likewise there is in Mormonism.

• Only one God has the attribute of omnipotence.
• The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each has the attribute of omnipotence.
• Therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.

The one God is not the divine attributes; the divine attributes are characteristics or descriptive truths about the one God.

That is an absurd logic. It is like saying:

• Only one man is intelligent.
  
• Jack, David, and Tom are intelligent.
  
• Therefore Tom, Jack, and David are one man.
  

How does that make any sense.

Edited July 24, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Mola,

Can we agree that in John 10:28-38, Jesus is claiming to be God's "Son" in a sense not applicable to other human beings?

No, I can't. Please explain.

[Hughes]

We are what is termed "immortal beings" in that we have a beginning but no end. God is the only eternal being, with out beginning or end.

God is transcendent, meaning he transcends his creation, so no matter where we are, we don't change the nature of God.

Your question concerning God sharing eternity with us, is answered by understanding our nature. Our bodies will put on immortality which like everything else has its source in God. So while he shares his communicable attributes with us, this does't change his nature.

Hi Hughes,

I agree that we cannot prove God exists, though there are those who claim they have used their words and their logic to "prove" that He does, even pointing to an empty tomb as evidence of their "proof"; and some make the same claim that they have "proven" that He does not exist....sigh.

Your comment about no other infinite "beings" could exist caught my eye. Where does mankind fit in with this belief? Once we are resurrected, do you believe that those who are saved get to join God inside of His infinite existence? If so, wouldn't that remove some part of His infinite space from Him by virtue of the fact that we would then be in it and He is no longer the only Being there? IOW, for us to be in His presence, do we take up some of the space of infinity?

Can something that it is not eternal become partially eternal at the moment they enter eternity? Or does that turn "eternal" or "eternity" into a false dichotomy? What are your thoughts about this?

Best regards,

jo

Edited July 24, 2011 by Hughes

[LeSellers]

we have a beginning but no end.

CFR. where does the Bible, since that is your putative source, does it say that man has a beginning?

For that matter, where does it say that God is "transcendent"?

Lehi

[altersteve]

You're avoiding the issue, Hughes. Answer the question, yes or no. If God is literally present in all places, then is He in h***? If He is, and if God truly is an omnibenevolent being, then h*** isn't h*** at all, and that would mean that there is no h***. So which is it? Is God literally present in h*** (which would mean that there is no h***), or is God omnipresent through His creations and influence and not present in h*** (which would mean that h*** wasn't created by Him and is, in fact, a lack of a place, as LDS doctrine declares)? Please answer the question without dancing around it like you have been doing.

CFR. where does the Bible, since that is your putative source, does it say that man has a beginning?

For that matter, where does it say that God is "transcendent"?

Lehi

Two more examples (along with creatio ex nihilo, the Trinity, and original sin) of the post-biblical additions to Christian belief by philosophers, teachings which modern scholars agree were not taught or even known prior to what Latter-day Saints refer to as the Great Apostasy.

Edited July 24, 2011 by altersteve

[saemo]

Logical, but it's based on a false premise. It goes back to the old paradox "Can God create a stone so large that He cannot lift it."

The LDS response is, No, because He cannot violate natural law. He did not create natural law, but uses it to do his work and fulfill his purposes. He is bound by law -- he cannot break his promises, he cannot transform Satan into Michael.

Who/what created "natural law"? Who binds God to this law?

[altersteve]

Who/what created "natural law"? Who binds God to this law?

Nobody. Nature being created doesn't make any sense.

[saemo]

Nobody. Nature being created doesn't make any sense.

Not sure I follow. Nature exists ex nihilo?

[Vance]

Nature exists ex nihilo?

Nice presumption you've got there.

[zerinus]

Christian doctrine is, God is the creator of all things, including time and space. Therefore, He exists outside of that which He Created.

That is a philosophical reasoning. It is not based on revelation. And it is possible to refute it on the basis of the same philosophical reasoning. Time is an extension of eternity. Eternity means time extended infinitely in either direction—past and future. The scriptures tell us that God is eternal. If God created time, then He must have also created eternity, and if He created eternity, then He couldn’t be eternal, because before He created eternity the attribute of “eternal” didn’t exist to be applicable to Him.

We can only know about God what He chooses to reveal to us about Himself. It is impossible to know anything about God, or about any of His attributes, or His creations for that matter, unless He chooses to reveal them to us. Therefore it is futile to resort to philosophical reasonings to find out anything about God beyond what He has chosen to tell us about Himself in the revelations that He has given to us.

God being omnipresent is easily explained by this doctrine.

It doesn’t, for the reason just explained.

God is not in time with us. This is one of the defining aspects of the miracle of the Incarnation. God became Man, and dwelt among us!

See above.

Christian doctrine is, God is the creator of all things, including time and space. Therefore, He exists outside of that which He Created. God being omnipresent is easily explained by this doctrine. God is not in time with us. This is one of the defining aspects of the miracle of the Incarnation. God became Man, and dwelt among us!

I think LDS understand the concept of separating oneself from God. h*** being a state, rather than a place.

Peace.

Logical, but it's based on a false premise. It goes back to the old paradox "Can God create a stone so large that He cannot lift it."

The LDS response is, No, because He cannot violate natural law. He did not create natural law, but uses it to do his work and fulfill his purposes. He is bound by law -- he cannot break his promises, he cannot transform Satan into Michael.

Who/what created "natural law"? Who binds God to this law?

Nobody. Nature being created doesn't make any sense.

I disagree with cdowis and altersteve that God did not create nature or natural law. The correct response to your post was the one I gave above.

[saemo]

That is a philosophical reasoning. It is not based on revelation. And it is possible to refute it on the basis of the same philosophical reasoning. Time is an extension of eternity. Eternity means time extended infinitely in either direction—past and future.

"Eternity" is a description of time. Time is not an extension of this description. Infinity is a description of space (not time).

The scriptures tell us that God is eternal. If God created time, then He must have also created eternity, and if He created eternity, then He couldn’t be eternal, because before He created eternity the attribute of “eternal” didn’t exist to be applicable to Him.

The word "God" is not a description of time. Eternity itself is not time, it is a description of time, meaning, without beginning or end, which is Biblical.

We can only know about God what He chooses to reveal to us about Himself. It is impossible to know anything about God, or about any of His attributes, or His creations for that matter, unless He chooses to reveal them to us. Therefore it is futile to resort to philosophical reasonings to find out anything about God beyond what He has chosen to tell us about Himself in the revelations that He has given to us.

God made us as reasonable and rational creatures. To use what God gave us is not an offense against God. Philosophy is not used to probe God, it is used to reason what He has revealed. You are attempting to do the very same in this post I am responding to.

I disagree with cdowis and altersteve that God did not create nature or natural law. The correct response to your post was the one I gave above.

A difference in philosophy?