My Biggest Stumbling Block

[mfbukowski]

I thought we kinda agreed that there could be some truth to Aristotelian causality?

It depends on how you look at it. Aristotelian causality implies a chain of causes back to the first cause- remember that desk ornament that had the little steel balls that you would hit one- and at the end of the line- the last one would move? Kind of like that- or billiard balls on a table-

But now contrast that with Darwinian evolution- (just as an example- I am not a Darwinian) -- would you say that the synthesis of protein was the "first cause" of mankind? Darwinian evolution as a model is a good way to look at process causality- there are no direct links like little billard balls between the beginning and the end. Each step - even insofar as they are "steps" are influenced by an infinity of possibilities of interaction between each organism and the environment- including mutation by gamma rays, chance, etc. Causation becomes a complex network of interactions of events in time and space- not a chain of definable "causes". Logically one can see anything or nothing as a direct cause.

What is the "cause" of any human being's "existence"? Is it your parents- that spark of attraction when they first met- is it what conditioned that mental state? Is it your grandparents mental state? Is it the physical locations they both chose so that they could meet? What is your CAUSE? There are a jillion ways of answering that, because there were a jillion interactions which made you who you are. Asking what your "cause" is almost doesn't even make sense! It depends on how you look at it- the whole thing becomes a useless concept.

So seeing the universe as an organic unfolding is pretty different than seeing it is a clockwork of causes.

But yet life itself seeks survival, and a seed grows into a plant. How it "knows" to do that can be seen as intelligent or non-intelligent. Maybe it is just a property of universes to develop life- maybe that is "programmed" or maybe not. Maybe consciousness seeks to develop itself- we LDS call that "intelligence"

The strength of the position to me, is that it can be seen either way. That is why it takes faith- you can either see it as "intelligence" or just what universes do. But it leaves open how each universe develops. So if one wants, one can see the "infinite regress" as part of that unfolding of multiple universes- perhaps gods develop in each, perhaps each has a universe assigned for him to "grow"- you can make up any story you want to explain it. Or you can take the point of view of only ONE universe where God is the supreme Creator Intelligence if you want to see it from that perspective- a kind of Catholic King of Creation notion- it just all depends on your perspective.

We cannot possibly know the answers scientifically - one might or might not add the word "yet" to that sentence. That is where faith and personal revelation comes in.

But I find the process/ organic model far superior to the "first cause" Aristotelian model for many many reasons, not the least of which is avoiding the whole "problem" of what we call "evolution". If the universe is already a process there is nothing to explain- it just does what it does, and God progresses as do his children.

To me, it just makes sense.

[CV75]

So "God" evolved accidentally?

Are you replying to post #50 here? If so, I don’t see how you get that from the scripture verses discussed there, which I understand are about what God did for us by creating the physical world (universe) of our mortal probation, provided a Savior, and how this stage of progress would not be available to us without Him. We simply would not be / exist as we are, even though we may have continued as something else, which from the prophets’ perspective would be pretty horrible.

Everything we try to understand beyond these scriptures takes nothing away from them, and vice-versa. Someday we will comprehend God (D&C 88:49).

If you are referring to my anecdotal vignette in post #70 instead (where I did not mention an accident), I'm not interested in it enough to pursue it.

[Questing Beast]

... Aristotelian causality implies a chain of causes back to the first cause- remember that desk ornament that had the little steel balls that you would hit one- and at the end of the line- the last one would move? Kind of like that- or billiard balls on a table-

I'll take your word for it. But if so, then I am not "stuck" on Aristotelian causality. The concept for the Supreme Being, Necessary Cause, or "God" worthy of actual, eternal worship, is in no remote fashion to be compared to such a metaphor as you employ here.

But now contrast that with Darwinian evolution- (just as an example- I am not a Darwinian) -- would you say that the synthesis of protein was the "first cause" of mankind?

Abiogenesis no matter in what form does not address the question of Existence in the first place.

Darwinian evolution...

Does not involve anything beyond this earth.

... What is your CAUSE? There are a jillion ways of answering that, because there were a jillion interactions which made you who you are. Asking what your "cause" is almost doesn't even make sense! It depends on how you look at it- the whole thing becomes a useless concept.

In spite of your resort to hyperbole, none of the theories focused on this earth can begin to answer the fundamental question of why Existence instead of nothing.

So seeing the universe as an organic unfolding is pretty different than seeing it is a clockwork of causes.

I don't understand this.

But yet life itself seeks survival, and a seed grows into a plant. How it "knows" to do that can be seen as intelligent or non-intelligent. Maybe it is just a property of universes to develop life- maybe that is "programmed" or maybe not. Maybe consciousness seeks to develop itself- we LDS call that "intelligence"

The strength of the position to me, is that it can be seen either way. That is why it takes faith- you can either see it as "intelligence" or just what universes do. But it leaves open how each universe develops. So if one wants, one can see the "infinite regress" as part of that unfolding of multiple universes- perhaps gods develop in each, perhaps each has a universe assigned for him to "grow"- you can make up any story you want to explain it. Or you can take the point of view of only ONE universe where God is the supreme Creator Intelligence if you want to see it from that perspective- a kind of Catholic King of Creation notion- it just all depends on your perspective.

We cannot possibly know the answers scientifically - one might or might not add the word "yet" to that sentence. That is where faith and personal revelation comes in.

But I find the process/ organic model far superior to the "first cause" Aristotelian model for many many reasons, not the least of which is avoiding the whole "problem" of what we call "evolution". If the universe is already a process there is nothing to explain- it just does what it does, and God progresses as do his children.

To me, it just makes sense.

The universe can do what it does without any Cause whatsoever, only if the universe IS the Cause itself. That would make the manifesting universe "God" in my opinion. There are no space-time constraints upon "God", so trying to assign an age to the universe then becomes non sequitur. So the First Cause is a misnomer. Necessary Cause is more accurate, and does not require any space-time considerations whatsoever. The biggest concept requires that everything within space-time happen simultaneously, or NOW, from "God's" perspective. And also that Existence of space-time be an infinitely unfolding thing. As I said, NOT Aristotelian at all, at least the way you describe it here....

[Questing Beast]

Are you replying to post #50 here?

Yes.

If so, I don’t see how you get that from the scripture verses discussed there, which I understand are about what God did for us by creating the physical world (universe) of our mortal probation, provided a Savior, and how this stage of progress would not be available to us without Him. We simply would not be / exist as we are, even though we may have continued as something else, which from the prophets’ perspective would be pretty horrible.

Everything we try to understand beyond these scriptures takes nothing away from them, and vice-versa. Someday we will comprehend God (D&C 88:49).

If you are referring to my anecdotal vignette in post #70 instead (where I did not mention an accident), I'm not interested in it enough to pursue it.

I inferred "accidental" because that would be the only way a "god of organization" could arise from the morass of chaotic, eternal matter/intelligence. Yet even assuming such to have occurred, why would "our" god be the only one? Like life arising on earth beginning at the cellular level and becoming complex, it occurred everywhere in the oceans, not just once somewhere. So "gods" multiply too. This is a horrible theology, imho. Mormons can repeat the mantra that God the Father is the only "God" with which we have to do (as B. Young said); but the existence of other gods who arose out of the chaotic eternal matter/intelligences is problematic: how can anyone have faith in ONE god, knowing that there are an infinite number of gods?

The only concept I have faith in says that "God" Is Existence in the first place; and all of this world is caused to be through the will of "God". In effect, everything and everyone is "God" manifesting infinitely; with each manifestation possessing free will of a level commensurate with its intelligence - because "God" possesses free will and would not cause any intelligence to Exist severed from free will. "God" is not a puppet master in the world. That is what the evidence of our own senses and our race's combined experience tells us....

[CV75]

Yes.

I inferred "accidental" because that would be the only way a "god of organization" could arise from the morass of chaotic, eternal matter/intelligence. Yet even assuming such to have occurred, why would "our" god be the only one? Like life arising on earth beginning at the cellular level and becoming complex, it occurred everywhere in the oceans, not just once somewhere. So "gods" multiply too. This is a horrible theology, imho. Mormons can repeat the mantra that God the Father is the only "God" with which we have to do (as B. Young said); but the existence of other gods who arose out of the chaotic eternal matter/intelligences is problematic: how can anyone have faith in ONE god, knowing that there are an infinite number of gods?

The only concept I have faith in says that "God" Is Existence in the first place; and all of this world is caused to be through the will of "God". In effect, everything and everyone is "God" manifesting infinitely; with each manifestation possessing free will of a level commensurate with its intelligence - because "God" possesses free will and would not cause any intelligence to Exist severed from free will. "God" is not a puppet master in the world. That is what the evidence of our own senses and our race's combined experience tells us....

That a "god of organization" arose from a morass is not an interesting proposition to me. Of course I’ve entertained thoughts about where He came from and how, but I know this is putting the cart before the horse—I have to become more like Him first in order to really have things in perspective.

Many apparently do believe in God, regardless of how He got here or how many are in His company (or whether He is in the company of others). This in my mind does not diminish what He has revealed to me thus far about Himself, which has positively impacted my existence immeasurably.

Your concept of “God as Existence in the first place” on the surface (at least to me) doesn’t seem irreconcilable with what is taught in Church or the scriptural statements from David, Nephi and Paul that were cited in the OP (which do not speak of God as a puppet master). The concern seems to be a matter of scope and the subjective experience of what that means. As far as I’m concerned, God is Existence for the reasons I posted elsewhere.

My point is that the scriptures teach us about God as far as we on this temporal, probationary earth are concerned (Moses 1:35). The scriptures are best be understood by getting the spirit of prophecy, or the testimony of Jesus, or the same Spirit that the prophets possessed. This spirit begins with a desire to believe. If we allow other influences (including ourselves) to direct what they wrote in simplicity and pure testimony to propel us in other directions, or if we allow what we believe to mask their pure, plain and precious intent, or if we think we’re onto something better, hopefully that is only part of our learning process and not a done deal.

[CV75]

Yes.

I inferred "accidental" because that would be the only way a "god of organization" could arise from the morass of chaotic, eternal matter/intelligence. Yet even assuming such to have occurred, why would "our" god be the only one? Like life arising on earth beginning at the cellular level and becoming complex, it occurred everywhere in the oceans, not just once somewhere. So "gods" multiply too. This is a horrible theology, imho. Mormons can repeat the mantra that God the Father is the only "God" with which we have to do (as B. Young said); but the existence of other gods who arose out of the chaotic eternal matter/intelligences is problematic: how can anyone have faith in ONE god, knowing that there are an infinite number of gods?

The only concept I have faith in says that "God" Is Existence in the first place; and all of this world is caused to be through the will of "God". In effect, everything and everyone is "God" manifesting infinitely; with each manifestation possessing free will of a level commensurate with its intelligence - because "God" possesses free will and would not cause any intelligence to Exist severed from free will. "God" is not a puppet master in the world. That is what the evidence of our own senses and our race's combined experience tells us....

That a "god of organization" arose from a morass is not an interesting proposition to me. Of course I’ve entertained thoughts about where He came from and how, but I know this is putting the cart before the horse—I have to become more like Him first in order to really have things in perspective.

Many apparently do believe in God, regardless of how He got here or how many are in His company (or whether He is in the company of others). This in my mind does not diminish what He has revealed to me thus far about Himself, which has positively impacted my existence immeasurably.

Your concept of “God as Existence in the first place” on the surface (at least to me) doesn’t seem irreconcilable with what is taught in Church or the scriptural statements from David, Nephi and Paul that were cited in the OP (which do not speak of God as a puppet master). The concern seems to be a matter of scope and the subjective experience of what that means. As far as I’m concerned, God is Existence for the reasons I posted elsewhere.

My point is that the scriptures teach us about God as far as we on this temporal, probationary earth are concerned (Moses 1:35). The scriptures are best be understood by getting the spirit of prophecy, or the testimony of Jesus, or the same Spirit that the prophets possessed. This spirit begins with a desire to believe. If we allow other influences (including ourselves) to direct what they wrote in simplicity and pure testimony to propel us in other directions, or if we allow what we believe to mask their pure, plain and precious intent, or if we think we’re onto something better, hopefully that is only part of our learning process and not a done deal.