Mormonisms Local God

[mfbukowski]

And just in case there is anyone out there who isn't aware of our understanding on this issue, what mski is referring to is our understanding of how things flow from moment to moment with no moment to begin it all, generallly speaking. One moment in time is preceded by another, and there is no moment when there isn't a moment before that. I think that pretty much covers the "time" issue.

I would just add that it's almost irrelevant if that understanding of time is "correct" in some absolute sense- the bottom line is that is the only way we can think about it anyway, so it becomes irrelevant that it is correct or not.

We really cannot understand "transcendence" if it can be said to "exist" but that also becomes problematic because it is questionable to say that we can say that anything "exists" that we cannot know about or speak about (which is the same thing)

[Darren10]

This is a good and true point. Perhaps "catching a glimpse" isn't the best way to say it. I can try to explain to a deaf person what sound is like and then the deaf person will have at least some idea about sound, even if that idea is 99% deficient. But at least they've got the 1% idea. I think that is what mystics and theologians are trying to do: give us at least a little idea to work with.

I liked that response. Just let me add that the belief that man cannot possibly know all the ways of the Lord (that's right in LDS canonized doctrine) is firm in the LDS theology. But the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ gives man a better and fuller understanding of the nature of God and His Son. Without the restoration, the nature of the Father and the Son has been shrouded in too much mystery. Much more than needs be. Justifying the trinitarian formula is simply mind boggling. The rationalization behind the trinitarian formula goes way beyond anything the Bible says of the two divine persons. The true nature of God and the Son is much simpler. There's one Father *and* one Son. Two beings. Both work together as one Eternal God for the "exaltation and eternal life of man". It is all for the glory of the Father: the purest form of monotheism there is.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

The first car is travelling at the speed of light: 186,000 mps.

Dude. What kinda gas you usin'?

Edited September 12, 2012 by Darren10

[mfbukowski]

This is a good and true point. Perhaps "catching a glimpse" isn't the best way to say it. I can try to explain to a deaf person what sound is like and then the deaf person will have at least some idea about sound, even if that idea is 99% deficient. But at least they've got the 1% idea. I think that is what mystics and theologians are trying to do: give us at least a little idea to work with.

Those of us who have experienced it know anyway!

[Ahab]

I don't believe modern physics is nonsense. I believe modern physics makes sense in a way that is not common sense, because modern physics defies common every day experience.

Could it be that some of this confusion comes from a misunderstanding of what we both mean by "common sense"?

I know a lot of people don't use common sense, sometimes, when they think of some things, but what I mean by "common sense" is that it is commonly available to everyone and someone/anyone can use it every day if they have a mind to. It might also help if I tell you that what is commonly called "common sense" is what we in the Church refer to as the light of Christ, also referred to as the thoughts in our conscience which can help us to know right from wrong. Common sense gives us our good thoughts, which we can override with rebellion and other such nonsense.

So, when you say "sense", you can go ahead and include that as part of what I refer to as "common sense", while nonsense would be the in opposite spectrum. Or, you can just say "logical", even though logic can be applied to things that are not true as well as the truth.

Here is an example from relativity (it's actually the example that Einstein resolved when he postulated special relativity):

Imagine two cars, one right behind the other. The first car is travelling at 100 mph. The second, trailing car is travelling at 30 mph. The second car points a radar gun at the first, leading car to see how fast that car is going. The radar gun would report a speed of 70 mph; since the radar gun itself is travelling at 30 mph, we have to subtract that from the first car's speed. This is common every day experience -- when you measure the speed of something you have to take your own speed into account.

Now, physicists started doing experiments with the speed of light and here's what happened. Imagine again 2 cars. The first car is travelling at the speed of light: 186,000 mps. The second car is travelling somewhat slower, at 100,000 mps. The second car points its radar gun at the first. Our common everyday experience, as shown in my first example, dictates that the radar gun should show 86,000 mps. But it didn't -- it showed the speed of light: 186,000 mps. No matter how fast or slow the speed measurer is, something travelling at the speed of light is always measured as travelling at the speed of light.

Now, tell me, does that make any common sense? Does that corraborate with any common experience you've had?

First of all, I noticed that you were trying to get me to "imagine" something. Do you know reality doesn't necessarily correspond to imagination? What I would want to do is jump in the car that is supposedly going 100,0000 mps and somehow see how fast it is going, independent of what the radar gun in the other car is indicating. For all I know maybe the radar gun blew a fuse after the first experiment and needs to be fixed. You have to be careful not to just automatically believe whatever a physicist will tell you.

In physics, if you go into a realm that is big, small, or fast, our common every day experiences, upon which we base our common sense, no longer work.

They should, using my idea of what common sense means. Everything can be explained using the light of Christ. Even things that aren't true.

Yes, it appears this is where we differ. I'm willing to be open to the idea that my common experience or perspective might not be telling me the truth. I've come to this conclusion through my studies of philosophy, religion, mysticism, and (informally of course) physics.

But now you're saying they should at least make sense to you. Is that right? Common or not, it should at least make sense, and I think you should be able to explain how it makes sense to somebody else..

Ok, one more. But remember, I'm not saying it's nonsense; I'm saying it is not common sense. I don't buy into your strict dichotomy that something is common sense or nonsense. Something can make sense, but just not in a common way.

How about we go with the word "logical"?

Would that be an okay substitute for what you're thinking of as something that at least makes sense?

Here's the example, again from Einstein. Our common every day experience tells us that time is the same for everyone. You experience a second the same way I experience a second. I've NEVER had the experience where my perfectly functioning watch says 1 minute has gone by yet, during that same minute as measured by my watch, my friend's perfectly functioning watch says that 10 minutes has gone by. Have you?

Me: No, just to let you know I am paying attention.

However, Einstein's theories of relativity state differently: in general relativity, he states that the closer something is to a gravity source, the slower time will flow for that thing. In special relativity, he says that the faster something travels, the slower time will flow.

Now I hope you're going to show me how that at least makes some sense.

Here's a practical application of this idea. The GPS system is made up of satellites that are orbiting the earth with extremely precise atomic clocks. However, those clocks, since they are in orbit, are farther away from the the gravity of the earth and the clocks on the earth. They are also moving at speeds different to clocks on the ground. This means, according to relativity, that the clocks on the satellites will measure time differently that the clocks on earth (the difference is something like 40,000 nanoseconds per day). So, the GPS satellite clocks have to be adjusted to compensate for this difference in order to give us accurate measurements. The atomic clocks on the satellites measure time differently than the atomic clocks on the earth. Two perfectly functioning and precise clocks measuring time differently. That's surely not in common every day experience and it certainly defies common sense based upon that common everyday experience.

I don't think it defies common sense. When a timepiece is closer to a gravity source, or when it is further away from a gravity source, then it doesn't have the same amount of pressure applied to the various parts. Less resistance, faster time. That makes sense.

Ok, we'll use your common sense yard stick here. Can you give me an example from common everyday experience of one thing occupying multiple places at the same time?

Me, now. Oh wait, that was a moment ago, which was the future of the moment before that, but that moment is past now. Sheesh. I can't seem to stop moving through time. I'm still talking about only one moment in time, though.

Logically, it does, because if I cannot point out the boundary where something is and where something isn't then I cannot say that something is located here, so then it must be located nowhere.

But you can. If something is there you can point out when it is there, or was there, whenever you noticed it there.

Of course, my point is that language falls apart at this point, which is why linguistic contradiction becomes the best way to talk about such things.

Heh, no, contradiction should be avoided at all costs. That's not good.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Ahab

[mrmandias]

Yes, but to be fair, their God is capable of creating the entire universe ex nihilo.

But not capable of feeling emotion or eating an icecream cone.*

*Unless, you know, you include Jesus. Whom traditional Christians always seem to forget about in these kinds of discussions.

[Ahab]

Yes, but to be fair, their God is capable of creating the entire universe ex nihilo.

No, to be fair, they believe their God is capable of creating the entire universe ex nihilo.

In reality, there is no God like that anywhere, which is okay with them, because they don't believe their God is somewhere anyway.

[MiserereNobis]

Could it be that some of this confusion comes from a misunderstanding of what we both mean by "common sense"?

I know a lot of people don't use common sense, sometimes, when they think of some things, but what I mean by "common sense" is that it is commonly available to everyone and someone/anyone can use it every day if they have a mind to. It might also help if I tell you that what is commonly called "common sense" is what we in the Church refer to as the light of Christ, also referred to as the thoughts in our conscience which can help us to know right from wrong. Common sense gives us our good thoughts, which we can override with rebellion and other such nonsense.

So, when you say "sense", you can go ahead and include that as part of what I refer to as "common sense", while nonsense would be the in opposite spectrum. Or, you can just say "logical", even though logic can be applied to things that are not true as well as the truth.

Hmm. Is this a common view among LDS? That what people "common sense" is the light of Christ illuminating our minds? The definition of common sense that most people use is judgement that is practical, common among most people, and native/natural. It is based on our common every day experiences and often the interpretation the society we are raised in gives to those experiences. It seems you are using it in a different way which could be part of our problem.

When I use common sense, I am using the definition I just listed, with a particular focus on it being based on our common every day experiences.

First of all, I noticed that you were trying to get me to "imagine" something. Do you know reality doesn't necessarily correspond to imagination? What I would want to do is jump in the car that is supposedly going 100,0000 mps and somehow see how fast it is going, independent of what the radar gun in the other car is indicating. For all I know maybe the radar gun blew a fuse after the first experiment and needs to be fixed. You have to be careful not to just automatically believe whatever a physicist will tell you.

Well, first of all, yes, I need you to imagine something. I can't very well take you into a car with a radar gun while we're on this forum now, can I? So I'm asking you to imagine a common experience -- driving in a car and getting hit with a speeding ticket

If I can't ask you to imagine situations then there is no way we can have any sort of discussion.

As far as the admittedly impossible situation of getting into a car that is going the speed of light goes, I wanted to give a clear example instead of the ultra complex scientific experiments that actually do this kind of measuring. Yes, I have to ask you to trust the scientists, but these experiments measuring the speed of light, etc, have been going on since the late 1800s and always show the same results. So no, no "fuse has blown." Also, as I mentioned, it was the incredible fact that the measurements did not match up to the common sense expectation that caused Einstein to postulate the theory of special relativity.

They should, using my idea of what common sense means. Everything can be explained using the light of Christ. Even things that aren't true.

Well, if things that aren't true can be explained using common sense, then perhaps you shouldn't lean so exclusively on it.

But now you're saying they should at least make sense to you. Is that right? Common or not, it should at least make sense, and I think you should be able to explain how it makes sense to somebody else..

I have been explaining. You just having accepted my explanation. That doesn't mean it doesn't make some sort of sense to me and that I can't explain it.

How about we go with the word "logical"?

Would that be an okay substitute for what you're thinking of as something that at least makes sense?

Well, yes and no. In quantum mechanics, logic also goes out the window. For example, with logic, cause has to precede effect, right? However, in quantum mechanics, there are many times were the effect precedes the cause, as if the cause reached back in time to change something. That is illogical and against common sense and experience, yet it happens.

Remember what Spock said in Star Trek VI: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end"

Now I hope you're going to show me how that at least makes some sense.

I can't -- it doesn't make sense, if sense is based on our common every day experience. But it is true.

I don't think it defies common sense. When a timepiece is closer to a gravity source, or when it is further away from a gravity source, then it doesn't have the same amount of pressure applied to the various parts. Less resistance, faster time. That makes sense.

This is an incorrect understanding of what general relativity is saying. It's not saying that gravity affects the clock. It says that gravity affects time, which the clock then measures. "Pressure" has nothing to do with it. Time itself, not the measurement of time, increases.

Here, I recommend this book on modern physics if you'd like to have your mind (and common sense) blown: The Fabric of the Cosmos by Dr. Greene

Me, now.

You must have misunderstood me. I seriously doubt that you have been in two places at the same time. Were you in America and China at the exact same moment? That's what I meant.

But you can. If something is there you can point out when it is there, or was there, whenever you noticed it there.

Logically, to say something in spacetime is in a certain location, you have to be able to say where it is not. There has to be a boundary where it ends. Your God has a boundary -- his body is on/near Kolob, so there is a place where you can see "here he is" and then there is his skin and then there is the place where you can say "here he is not." If you can't point out the boundary anywhere, then it makes no sense to say "here it is" because "here it is" implies that somewhere you can likewise say "here it is not."

Heh, no, contradiction should be avoided at all costs. That's not good.

Hmmm, didn't Jesus say, "I am the beginning and the end, I am the Alpha and the Omega." That's a contradiction.

[MiserereNobis]

But not capable of feeling emotion or eating an icecream cone.*

*Unless, you know, you include Jesus. Whom traditional Christians always seem to forget about in these kinds of discussions.

This is a straw-man, as you readily admit by adding the asterisk. All Christians point to the immanent nature of God -- the Second Person of the Holy Trinity incarnated in Jesus.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

[MiserereNobis]

Dude. What kinda gas you usin'?

The same gas they put into the Pope-mobile

[MiserereNobis]

I liked that response. Just let me add that the belief that man cannot possibly know all the ways of the Lord (that's right in LDS canonized doctrine) is firm in the LDS theology.

I'm happy to hear this again, because some people have insinuated that the knowledge of the nature of God is simple and easily understood.

But the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ gives man a better and fuller understanding of the nature of God and His Son. Without the restoration, the nature of the Father and the Son has been shrouded in too much mystery. Much more than needs be. Justifying the trinitarian formula is simply mind boggling. The rationalization behind the trinitarian formula goes way beyond anything the Bible says of the two divine persons. The true nature of God and the Son is much simpler. There's one Father *and* one Son. Two beings. Both work together as one Eternal God for the "exaltation and eternal life of man". It is all for the glory of the Father: the purest form of monotheism there is.

I understand that this is the LDS view, so of course I will respectfully disagree. However, I'm not sure how having two beings that are two separate gods is the purest form of monotheism there is, since two gods means more than one god and monotheism means that only one god exists. Monotheism doesn't mean that multiple gods do what they do for the glory of one god. It means only one god exists.

As far as justifying the Holy Trinity as being mindboggling, I will agree with you there. Mindboggling doesn't mean it isn't true, however. As I have been laboring to point out to Ahab, there are many things in modern physics that are absolutely mindboggling.

In fact, I would assume that something as incredible as the nature and being of God would be mindboggling, at least for a human mind.

[MiserereNobis]

At least our understanding can be explained while using some common sense. But you're half right. Their's can't.

There are many things about your god that are mysterious. Where did he come from? How was he exalted? How does he organize intelligences into spirits? What is an unorganized intelligence anyways and what was it doing before he organized it? Where did the matter and intelligence come from prior to his exaltation? How does he control the universe? How does he know everything? Where did the laws come from that he follows?

Mormons speculate on this stuff all the time (there are many threads here doing that)

And just in case there is anyone out there who isn't aware of our understanding on this issue, what mski is referring to is our understanding of how things flow from moment to moment with no moment to begin it all, generallly speaking. One moment in time is preceded by another, and there is no moment when there isn't a moment before that. I think that pretty much covers the "time" issue.

Where is the first moment? Our common sense tells us that everything has a cause -- where was the beginning? You can't explain it, can you, because it is a mystery.

So what's all the hubbub? Why is any of this so hard to understand? It really isn't, you know. It's all very simple. It's just that some people think it's too easy so they look for a more complicated explanation. Even God isn't all that hard to understand, as far as what kind of being he is, or where he came from.

Now this does boggle my mind

You think it is easy to understand what God is, what kind of being He is, and where He came from? Please, do tell....

What Father is not a Son to someone else?

It doesn't occur to you that Father and Son could be metaphors, the best way God has determined to describe to us the relationship between the First and Second Person of the Holy Trinity?

Jesus is also referred to as the Word. Do you take that literally, too?

And he is the kind of being we refer to as "God", the most supreme kind of being in all of existence... everywhere and everywhen.

Wait a minute, your god is not everywhere and everywhen. He's on/near Kolob, right?

[USU78]

I'm happy to hear this again, because some people have insinuated that the knowledge of the nature of God is simple and easily understood.

I understand that this is the LDS view, so of course I will respectfully disagree. However, I'm not sure how having two beings that are two separate gods is the purest form of monotheism there is, since two gods means more than one god and monotheism means that only one god exists. Monotheism doesn't mean that multiple gods do what they do for the glory of one god. It means only one god exists.

As far as justifying the Holy Trinity as being mindboggling, I will agree with you there. Mindboggling doesn't mean it isn't true, however. As I have been laboring to point out to Ahab, there are many things in modern physics that are absolutely mindboggling.

In fact, I would assume that something as incredible as the nature and being of God would be mindboggling, at least for a human mind.

Now we're getting somewhere.

We hold that there's nothing in Deuteronomy or elsewhere which requires the radical monotheism of modern Rabbinical Judaism. The need, therefore, for accretion of Father, Son and Holy Ghost into one disappears once you accept that "Sch'ma Yisrael! Adonai Eloneinu: Adonai echad!" doesn't mean what they claim it means.

Besides: we take seriously the dictum that Pater non Filius est.

Edited September 12, 2012 by USU78

[Calm]

A person can understand something and explain it while using some common sense and still other people may not believe that person understands the issue and is using some common sense to explain it. There's no guarantee that anyone will be believed on any issue, even when someone reallly does understand an issue and uses some common sense to explain what they do understand.

The subject here was whether or not God is somewhere...........

Pius followed my point and I am too tired to repeat it. I will retire for now and let the two of you continue to discuss it.

[MiserereNobis]

Now we're getting somewhere.

We hold that there's nothing in Deuteronomy or elsewhere which requires the radical monotheism of modern Rabbinical Judaism. The need, therefore, for accretion of Father, Son and Holy Ghost into one disappears once you accept that "Sch'ma Yisrael! Adonai Eloneinu: Adonai echad!" doesn't mean what they claim it means.

We can agree that modern Rabbinical Judaism has got it wrong when it comes to the nature of God

Besides: we take seriously the dictum that Pater non Filius est.

Catholics take that very seriously, too. The Father is not the Son. But we also take very seriously Pater est Deus and Filius est Deus.

[USU78]

We can agree that modern Rabbinical Judaism has got it wrong when it comes to the nature of God

Catholics take that very seriously, too. The Father is not the Son. But we also take very seriously Pater est Deus and Filius est Deus.

And on that last point we likewise agree: both are Genus Deus. As is the Holy Ghost.

There's just no reason, outside of a need to respond to the accusation by radical Monotheistic Rabbinical Judaism of polytheism, to conflate their Persons.

One substance means, to us, made of the same stuff . . . Genus Deus, if you will.

[Calm]

One more comment.

I don't remember any other LDS using "common sense" in that way. The Light of Christ is usually only connected to our conscience, our inner sense of right and wrong, in my experience. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/light-light-of-christ?lang=eng&letter=l

I view "common sense" as that which is developed by everyday experience, that doesn't require any special training or education. In fact a totally uneducated individual might have more common sense ability than the most degreed professor that has ever existed. I have a relative who is brilliant, but I always used to be amused by her by her lack of common sense. She ended up vacuuming the pool once without noticing that she'd place the seal wrong so there was no vacuum and all she did was push the brush around....making a big mess. 5 seconds of paying attention would have yielded an awareness that there was no suction power and the dirt making a cloud rather than being sucked up. Another time she complained to me her then boyfriend had gotten mad at her after receiving a letter from her that took him apart one side and up the other, but she had expected him to only fall more deeply in love with her because it was such a witty letter...even though it was nothing but criticisms that he would likely read as insults. She was shocked at his reaction. Now who wouldn't normally have the common sense (learned from everyday experience) that when you say something negative about someone, they don't like generally like it.

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[harfad]

The Book of Mormon has this scripture: "... all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men." (Alma 40:8.) I wonder how this scripture plays into this discussion.

[Ahab]

Hmm. Is this a common view among LDS? That what people call "common sense" is the light of Christ illuminating our minds?

I can't very well answer that all by myself. I believe it's a common view, but that doesn't mean everyone will agree with me.

The definition of common sense that most people use is judgement that is practical, common among most people, and native/natural.

It seems to me that i'm using it that way.

Practical as in it can be used in all of our thought processes, yes.

Common among most people as in commonly available even though all people don't always use it all the time, yes.

Native/natural as in something God gives all of us to use if we will but use it, yes. See John chapter 1 regarding the light of Christ that is given to everyone that comes into the world.

Based on our common every day experiences as in based on what we can observe naturally around us, yes.

Often the interpretation the society we are raised in gives to those experiences, yes... often, not always.

It seems you are using it in a different way which could be part of our problem.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that you see a middle ground between common ssense and nonsense, and now that I've tried harder to do that, I think I can see what you mean.

I see common sense as what can help us know when something is right while also helping us know the difference between right and wrong, which is what I see as the purpose of our conscience, which is what I see as a light that comes to us from Christ. Therefore, if something appeals to our sense of common sense, then we usually consider that to be right.

The middle ground I think you see is what I would refer to as logically based reasoning, which can help us to know that something makes sense. It isn't necessarily right, but at least it makes some sense. A Star Wars type of universe, for example. Or Star Trek, if you prefer that example. You can come up with many ideas which can make sense from a logical point of view, but they don't necessarily agree with reality.

And then, finally, is all of what I refer to as nonsense, which can also be logical, sometimes, but is just not right and not true.

When I use common sense, I am using the definition I just listed, with a particular focus on it being based on our common every day experiences.

I can see how and why you would think of it that way.

Well, first of all, yes, I need you to imagine something. I can't very well take you into a car with a radar gun while we're on this forum now, can I? So I'm asking you to imagine a common experience -- driving in a car and getting hit with a speeding ticket

If I can't ask you to imagine situations then there is no way we can have any sort of discussion.

Okay, but I think it would be more productive to consider ideas we can observe in reality, rather than just in someone's imagination. We could talk all day of ships that can go warp 10 and why they would get clocked doing only warp 7, and we could also talk about all kinds of instruments we can imagine about how we would judge their true speed, but since none of that stuff corresponds to reality it would make about as much since as what 2 trekkies would say to each other at a Star Trek convention without helping us determine anything corresponding to reality.

As far as the admittedly impossible situation of getting into a car that is going the speed of light goes, I wanted to give a clear example instead of the ultra complex scientific experiments that actually do this kind of measuring. Yes, I have to ask you to trust the scientists, but these experiments measuring the speed of light, etc, have been going on since the late 1800s and always show the same results. So no, no "fuse has blown." Also, as I mentioned, it was the incredible fact that the measurements did not match up to the common sense expectation that caused Einstein to postulate the theory of special relativity.

Again, how about we focus on something we can observe in reality, rather than just in someone's imagination.

Well, if things that aren't true can be explained using common sense, then perhaps you shouldn't lean so exclusively on it.

What do you think would be wrong with using common sense to explain how something is not true? I think it's better to focus on learning what's right, but once you know something is right you can also know that the opposite of that is false. Something can't be both right and wrong at the same time, in the same circumstances. Common sense is a very good tool. Try using it more, not less.

I have been explaining. You just having accepted my explanation. That doesn't mean it doesn't make some sort of sense to me and that I can't explain it.

I can see how things could make sense from a logical point of view, and still not be true.

How about if you focus on using that kind of sense, which I call logic, to explain why you think God is not somewhere.

Well, yes and no. In quantum mechanics, logic also goes out the window. For example, with logic, cause has to precede effect, right?

Well, at least sometimes. It depends on the situation.

However, in quantum mechanics, there are many times were the effect precedes the cause, as if the cause reached back in time to change something. That is illogical and against common sense and experience, yet it happens.

Would you also say it's against logic if logic allowed an effect to cause something else? In what way would that make sense?

Remember what Spock said in Star Trek VI: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end"

Ah, I suspected you might like science fiction. Fortunately, I do too, so I can get into this a little bit with you. Let's just remember that fiction is not reality.

I can't -- it doesn't make sense, if sense is based on our common every day experience. But it is true.

It doesn't make any kind of sense to you, whatsoever, and yet you can still believe it is true?

Don't feel restricted to using only my ideas of what sense is. I've broken it down into 3 categories now, but you can add more if you can think of anything else that makes some kind of sense. Just explain it to me while explaining why you think it makes sense.

This is an incorrect understanding of what general relativity is saying. It's not saying that gravity affects the clock. It says that gravity affects time, which the clock then measures. "Pressure" has nothing to do with it. Time itself, not the measurement of time, increases.

Are you still talking about what is only in someone's imagination? Show me the reality of what you're talking about. And rememeber, mathematics can deal with imaginary numbers and numbers that aren't real, too.

Here, I recommend this book on modern physics if you'd like to have your mind (and common sense) blown: The Fabric of the Cosmos by Dr. Greene

No thanks. I prefer to keep using what I refer to as common sense.

You must have misunderstood me. I seriously doubt that you have been in two places at the same time. Were you in America and China at the exact same moment? That's what I meant.

I'm not contending against the idea that God can't be in more than one place at the same time. I know he can be, in a sense. I'm just trying to make the point that he is wherever he is and wherever his influence is felt. He is somewhere. You say he's not.

Logically, to say something in spacetime is in a certain location, you have to be able to say where it is not.

No, you don't have to, but using logic you might be able to do that based on where it is and what is the opposite of that location.

There has to be a boundary where it ends.

Unless the location you specify is the universe, generally. There is no end to it, which is why we call it the universe, the one place where everything is.

Your God has a boundary -- his body is on/near Kolob, so there is a place where you can see "here he is" and then there is his skin and then there is the place where you can say "here he is not." If you can't point out the boundary anywhere, then it makes no sense to say "here it is" because "here it is" implies that somewhere you can likewise say "here it is not."

The fact that God can be in one location doesn't preclude him from being somewhere else at the same time, though. And that's just if you're using the word "God" to refer to one person, like our Father in heaven. If you use the word "God" to refer to a kind of being, though, with more than one person who is God, then God is everywhere there is any person who is God in that location, as well as wherever their influence is felt.

Hmmm, didn't Jesus say, "I am the beginning and the end, I am the Alpha and the Omega." That's a contradiction.

No, that's not a contracdiction. A contradiction would be something like him saying he is Alpha and he is not Alpha, or he is Omego and not Omega. He is both, in some sense.

[Ahab]

There are many things about your god that are mysterious.

Only to people who don't know the answers. There are answers, though, and they can all be explained using common sense.

Where did he come from?

From his parents before him.

How was he exalted?

By doing what his parents told him to do. He was always God, though, just as we are, even though we are not perfect, yet.

How does he organize intelligences into spirits?

Each kind perpetuates life after its own kind. Intelligence refers to sentient life, possessing inteligence.

What is an unorganized intelligence anyways and what was it doing before he organized it?

Where are you getting that terminolgy? Matter may be unorganized, but I've never heard of intelligence that isn't.

Think of how offspring is begotten after its own kind. The seeds of life are within the ones that do the begetting, and when they reproduce they produce another after their own kind That life didn't begin, though. It was simply perpetuated.

Where did the matter and intelligence come from prior to his exaltation?

The matter and intelligence that he is composed of, you mean? From the ones who begat him.

How does he control the universe?

It would be more proper to think of it as "organizing". He approves of free will.

How does he know everything?

He has gathered enough intelligence from all over the place to become that familiar with it.

Where did the laws come from that he follows?

From those before him, which he perpetuates.

Mormons speculate on this stuff all the time (there are many threads here doing that)

Yes, and we promote using common sense to learn everything that can be known. You seem to think it's okay to defy it.

Where is the first moment?

There isn't one, generally speaking. That's what eternity means. Time goes on in both directions, forever.

Our common sense tells us that everything has a cause -- where was the beginning?

Common sense tells me there is no beginning to eternity. Why would you imagine there is one?

You can't explain it, can you, because it is a mystery.

I just now explained it, and it's only a mystery to those who don't know, or refuse to believe it.

Now this does boggle my mind

I can see that.

You think it is easy to understand what God is, what kind of being He is, and where He came from? Please, do tell....

I just did. Read what I have written.

It doesn't occur to you that Father and Son could be metaphors, the best way God has determined to describe to us the relationship between the First and Second Person of the Holy Trinity?

Sure, it has occurred to me, but God has told me it's not just a metaphor. I have a Father in heaven, and I am his son, spiritually begotten by him in heaven, just as you were.

Jesus is also referred to as the Word. Do you take that literally, too?

Yes, in a certain sense. He is the primary messenger of our Father in heaven, as we were told he would be before our fall through Adam and Eve. Another way of thinking about it is that he is the Executor of our Father's will. Our Father speaks to us through him.

Wait a minute, your god is not everywhere and everywhen. He's on/near Kolob, right?

Yes, but he isn't limited to only that place.

[mfbukowski]

Where is the first moment? Our common sense tells us that everything has a cause -- where was the beginning?

Hume didn't think that and pretty much no one has since him. Google "Hume causation" and see what you get.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

[mfbukowski]

One substance means, to us, made of the same stuff . . . Genus Deus, if you will.

Hey- that's an interesting way of putting it! I like it!

[MiserereNobis]

And on that last point we likewise agree: both are Genus Deus. As is the Holy Ghost.

There's just no reason, outside of a need to respond to the accusation by radical Monotheistic Rabbinical Judaism of polytheism, to conflate their Persons.

One substance means, to us, made of the same stuff . . . Genus Deus, if you will.

Interesting... are you LDS? The words you are using are very Trinitarian. Yes, God the Father and God the Son are of the same substance. It is an error to conflate their Persons (honestly, many objections I have received from the LDS concerning the Trinity do just that -- conflate their Persons and then try to show how they are not the same Person). They are of the same substance, the same Being -- God -- but are three separate Persons. Is this what you are saying?

Now, saying they are of the same genus is not saying they are of a unique substance, the substance of God, so perhaps you could elaborate on that.

[MiserereNobis]

Hume didn't think that and pretty much no one has since him. Google "Hume causation" and see what you get.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

Yes, I am familiar with Hume

I was asking a question to try to ascertain what Ahab believes.

[MiserereNobis]

From his parents before him.

I have been told very directly on this forum that what you are saying is not LDS doctrine, but simply speculation. What is your take on that? Is it doctrine or speculation?

Where are you getting that terminolgy? Matter may be unorganized, but I've never heard of intelligence that isn't.

I'm using Book of Abraham terminology:

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;1.22: Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones

Organization of intelligence comes from your scriptures.

There isn't one, generally speaking. That's what eternity means. Time goes on in both directions, forever.

Eternity also means a timeless state. Look it up in the dictionary

Common sense tells me there is no beginning to eternity. Why would you imagine there is one?

Doesn't everything in your common day experience have a beginning, middle, and end? I, since I don't rely solely on common every day experience, can imagine otherwise, but I'm asking you.

I just now explained it, and it's only a mystery to those who don't know, or refuse to believe it.

You said some sentences that ask more questions ad infinitum. If what you said is the nature of god, your god is a simple one.

It doesn't occur to you that Father and Son could be metaphors, the best way God has determined to describe to us the relationship between the First and Second Person of the Holy Trinity?

Sure, it has occurred to me, but God has told me it's not just a metaphor. I have a Father in heaven, and I am his son, spiritually begotten by him in heaven, just as you were.

How exactly is one "spiritually begotten"? I know how people are physically begotten, and it involves sex and childbirth. What is the spiritual process you speak of?

Jesus is also referred to as the Word. Do you take that literally, too?

Yes, in a certain sense. He is the primary messenger of our Father in heaven, as we were told he would be before our fall through Adam and Eve. Another way of thinking about it is that he is the Executor of our Father's will. Our Father speaks to us through him.

What you just said is not literal, but metaphoric. Jesus is a Word because He is a messenger is a metaphor. So no, you do not take it literally.

Wait a minute, your god is not everywhere and everywhen. He's on/near Kolob, right?

Yes, but he isn't limited to only that place.

What in common sense, in common every day experience, tells you that something can be in more than one place at the same time?