Mormonisms Local God

[mfbukowski]

Maybe you better give me a test run. Can you think of something I understand that I wouldn't be able to explain using some common sense?

Think that one through a little bit.

How is he supposed to know what you understand and what counts as common sense to you?

[Calm]

He? He! You have lost track of the conversation, lol....even if you are right.

I am more likely to be aware of something he doesn't understand. Perhaps he would like to give a discourse on the latest version of string theory (too tired to remember what it is called or to look it up) or the reason why quarks behave as they do.

Edited September 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

He? He! You have lost track of the conversation, lol....even if you are right.

I am more likely to be aware of something he doesn't understand. Perhaps he would like to give a discourse on the latest version of string theory (too tired to remember what it is called or to look it up) or the reason why quarks behave as they do.

OOPS

Keep away from that blue light- who knows? it couldn't hoit?

[Calm]

At midnight I am planning on turning into a pumpkin so I've got ten minutes left to read.....

[Ahab]

Think that one through a little bit.

How is he supposed to know what you understand and what counts as common sense to you?

Humor is difficult to detect sometimes, isn't it.

My point was that if I understand something then I can use common sense to explain what I do understand. If you think that's a difficult feat give it a try sometimes, or ask me to try. All you'd have to do is mention something I do understand and then I could explain it while using some common sense. Or, if that's too difficult for you because you can't think of anything I do understand, then just think of something that you understand and then use some common sense to explain it.

Sheesh. Some people act like it's hard to use common sense, sometimes. I don't understand that.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Ahab

[Ahab]

I am more likely to be aware of something he doesn't understand.

Oh really. How did you come up with that idea? Can you explain why you think that, and while using some common sense?

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.

Perhaps he would like to give a discourse on the latest version of string theory (too tired to remember what it is called or to look it up) or the reason why quarks behave as they do.

The subject here was whether or not God is somewhere. That's an issue I understand, so I was explaining how he is somewhere while using some common sense. The explanation is fairly simple to understand, and it's not that difficult for someone else to understand if explained while using some common sense. Did you see where I was explaining the issue? I can repeat it, again, if you'd like to see it, but as smart as you are I don't think you'll have much trouble finding what I said if you'll just look in this thread at some of my previous posts.

[MiserereNobis]

Perhaps he would like to give a discourse on the latest version of string theory (too tired to remember what it is called or to look it up) or the reason why quarks behave as they do.

The subject here was whether or not God is somewhere. That's an issue I understand, so I was explaining how he is somewhere while using some common sense. The explanation is fairly simple to understand, and it's not that difficult for someone else to understand if explained while using some common sense. Did you see where I was explaining the issue? I can repeat it, again, if you'd like to see it, but as smart as you are I don't think you'll have much trouble finding what I said if you'll just look in this thread at some of my previous posts.

Sure, the subject is whether or not God is somewhere. You keep consistently basing your argument on so-called common sense. The whole purpose to bring up modern physics is to show that somethings cannot really be explained using common sense. It's clear from your postings that you do not really know modern physics, so perhaps that is why quantum mechanics or relativity as a counter-example isn't persuading.

Modern physics defies common sense, yet is experimentally verifiable. Thus, we have something that is true that defies common sense. Thus we know that at some things can be true and defy common sense. Thus your argument against God being outside of time and place, based as it is on so-called common sense, is weakened.

In order to attack my weakening of your argument, you'd have to show that modern physics does not defy common sense (which I assure you will be MOST difficult).

Look, I know I'm not going to get you to agree that God is outside of time and space -- I'm not even really trying for that. Instead, I'm just trying to get you to see that your quick dismissal of the idea as silly and non-sensical is too hasty.

Again, MANY incredibly intelligent philosophers, theologians, mystics, and scientists have believed and argued for this idea. You should give them the benefit of the doubt that, even though you think they are wrong, they are not stupid and are not believing a silly and non-sensical idea.

Interestingly enough, I just read this on the Book of Abraham thread:

The worst mistake you can make when discussing the Book of Abraham is to try and use "common sense" as a baseline. There are many good and interesting arguments for the Book of Abraham, but I've yet to see one that relies on "common sense".

So I suppose we'll place the BofA in the same category as modern physics and the timeless nature of God

+ PAX

Edited September 12, 2012 by PopeStPiusX

[MiserereNobis]

If God exists outside of time and space there is nothing he can do to effect time and space. And yes I have studied and thought and contemplated and talked and studied some more. It is oxymoronic.

There are a few ways to resolve this issue. Here is one that uses one of the core tenents of Christianity: the Incarnation. When God the Son was incarnated from the Blessed Virgin Mary, God entered the world of time and place. He became immanent. Now, since God is also transcendent, and outside of time, that means that all time is present to Him at once, as if the past and future were all in the present moment. So, in the one moment that is eternally present to God, we have the Incarnation. We also have everything that came before and everything that came after. So, in the Incarnation, God entered the world. From our perspective that was at a specific time and place. From His perspective, it is at all times and places, since as a timeless Being there is only moment for him: all time. The Incarnation allows God to be in the world of time and place at the same time He is outside of the world of time and place.

So, one way that God can affect time and space is through the miracle of the Incarnation.

[Ahab]

... MANY incredibly intelligent philosophers, theologians, mystics, and scientists have believed and argued for this idea.

What idea are you referering to? I want to be sure I understand what you are saying, so just tell me what idea you mean now.

You should give them the benefit of the doubt that, even though you think they are wrong, they are not stupid and are not believing a silly and non-sensical idea.

If they're not believing a non-sensical idea, then it has to be an idea that agrees with common sense.

It's either nonsense, or it is common sense. There is no middle ground.

So please tell me, while using some common sense, how God can not be somewhere and still somehow exist in reality?

If he "is", or "was" or "will be in the future" then he "is" somewhere, as well as somewhen.

Interestingly enough, I just read this on the Book of Abraham thread:

So I suppose we'll place the BofA in the same category as modern physics and the timeless nature of God

+ PAX

Heh, just grabbing any source you can find that agrees with your idea, huh. Be careful. Not everything everyone says is true.

[MiserereNobis]

What idea are you referering to? I want to be sure I understand what you are saying, so just tell me what idea you mean now.

The idea that a being can exist outside of time and/or space.

If they're not believing a non-sensical idea, then it has to be an idea that agrees with common sense.

It's either nonsense, or it is common sense. There is no middle ground.

Modern physics defies common sense and yet ultimately is true (well, at least not yet disproven, but let's not get into the philosophy of science as a distraction). So, if we keep your strict dichotomy, we'd have to say that something that is true (modern physics) is nonsense. However, I think there is a middle ground: something can be true and defy common sense and yet not be nonsense because it makes sense in a way that is not common. For modern physics, this way is mathematics. For theology/philosophy of timelessness, this way is paradox.

So please tell me, while using some common sense, how God can not be somewhere and still somehow exist in reality?

As long as you keep strictly holding to common every day experience as the measuring stick of the evidence you'll accept, I cannot fulfill your request. I hope, however, that through the repeated repeated repeated examples of modern physics, I'm showing that your measuring stick of common sense isn't always necessary

If he "is", or "was" or "will be in the future" then he "is" somewhere, as well as somewhen.

If you point to a time frame and say "God is at this when" then you have now excluded him from other whens. If you point out a location and say "God is here" then you have excluded him from other heres. If you say God is everywhere and everywhen, you are also logically saying that God is nowhere and nowhen, so there is no single where or when that holds God. Please see my discussion of the Incarnation above for some further points on this idea.

Heh, just grabbing any source you can find that agrees with your idea, huh. Be careful. Not everything everyone says is true.

Sure, but I found it humorous that on another thread I was told to not follow common sense when thinking about the Book of Abraham. Perhaps you should go join that thread and show how common sense solves the Book of Abraham translation issues

[mfbukowski]

There are a few ways to resolve this issue. Here is one that uses one of the core tenents of Christianity: the Incarnation. When God the Son was incarnated from the Blessed Virgin Mary, God entered the world of time and place. He became immanent. Now, since God is also transcendent, and outside of time, that means that all time is present to Him at once, as if the past and future were all in the present moment. So, in the one moment that is eternally present to God, we have the Incarnation. We also have everything that came before and everything that came after. So, in the Incarnation, God entered the world. From our perspective that was at a specific time and place. From His perspective, it is at all times and places, since as a timeless Being there is only moment for him: all time. The Incarnation allows God to be in the world of time and place at the same time He is outside of the world of time and place.

So, one way that God can affect time and space is through the miracle of the Incarnation.

This only works if you believe it does. To others, it is senseless. How can you know what His perspective is when you say he is transcendent and you are not?

Can you adopt a transcendent perspective to explain what it is like? Obviously not. That is why it ultimately does not make sense.

Just saying "it is a mystery" makes more sense, in my opinion. I don't mean this as an attack- we cannot take on God's perspective either, but it is not because he is transcendent.

A truly transcendent God could not hear and answer prayers or be implored to do something and actually do it. He would be unchangeable. You could pray a lifetime to a truly transcendent God and he could not respond to you even if he wanted to, although that idea itself contradicts what a transcendent God is.

A transcendent God would be unknowable and dispassionate and definitely not a "Father". If you want a God who is a "Father" he must be immanent

In fact, you will probably respond that that role is taken by Christ who is both by nature God and man. What that does is admit that a human nature is required for God to interact with us- and Catholics find that immanence in Christ- correctly of course.

But the Father himself cannot be a Father unless he is also immanent so I see the Catholic position as trying to hold two incompatible positions at once- that Christ has at once a transcendent nature and an immanent nature.

That's like saying he is everywhere and somewhere at the same time. The problem is that is linguistically contradictory.

I know- it's a mystery.

The very word "transcendent" means that such a perspective is outside of human experience and unintelligible to humans- so why try to explain it?

It just gets Catholics into trouble I think.

[mfbukowski]

One might argue that Wittgenstein was a Catholic. But he never spoke about it because he understood that such beliefs were literally "unspeakable".

On the other hand, our immanent God is the author of language itself- he defines the world into existence by "calling" it the first through sixth days.

His messenger is the Word by whom all things were created.

It takes an immanent God to actually speak to his children, and we believe he can and does speak to each of us.

Edited September 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Darren10]

We cannot ever know that some being called Xlozk performed the ritual of tyolmw with Ktkoan.

I think my ex-uncle (divorced from my aunt who is biologically related to me), who was a drunk, ponce performed the "ritual of tyolmw with Ktkoan" in another universe. And it wasn't ptretty.

[Ahab]

There are a few ways to resolve this issue. Here is one that uses one of the core tenents of Christianity: the Incarnation. When God the Son was incarnated from the Blessed Virgin Mary, God entered the world of time and place. He became immanent. Now, since God is also transcendent, and outside of time, that means that all time is present to Him at once, as if the past and future were all in the present moment. So, in the one moment that is eternally present to God, we have the Incarnation. We also have everything that came before and everything that came after. So, in the Incarnation, God entered the world. From our perspective that was at a specific time and place. From His perspective, it is at all times and places, since as a timeless Being there is only moment for him: all time. The Incarnation allows God to be in the world of time and place at the same time He is outside of the world of time and place.

So, one way that God can affect time and space is through the miracle of the Incarnation.

All times and all places does not equate to God not being in time or in space. You're contradicting yourself.

Sheesh. Why is it so hard for you to use some common sense to see that you're not making sense on this issue?

At the least you should be able to say he is in time and space by virtue of the fact that he is in all of time and all of space.

That would at least make some sense. But, no, you have to say he is "not" in time or in space, and that's just silly.

[MiserereNobis]

This only works if you believe it does. To others, it is senseless. How can you know what His perspective is when you say he is transcendent and you are not?

We can get glimpses into His perspective based on what He has chosen to tell us about Himself. Obviously we cannot take His perspective, but we can do our best to get the glimpse.

Can you adopt a transcendent perspective to explain what it is like? Obviously not. That is why it ultimately does not make sense.

See above. Also, we need to take into account the experiences of the mystics. When they have a direct unmediated experience with a transcendent God, they try their best to explain it to us. Obviously their explanations are full of paradox and linguistic contradiction, because logical though and linguistics cannot transcend. However, the explanations can point us towards transcendence, to catch the glimpse, or, in the case of mystic, to experience the glimpse.

Just saying "it is a mystery" makes more sense, in my opinion. I don't mean this as an attack- we cannot take on God's perspective either, but it is not because he is transcendent.

It is a mystery, but we can try to our utmost limits to understand it.

A truly transcendent God could not hear and answer prayers or be implored to do something and actually do it. He would be unchangeable. You could pray a lifetime to a truly transcendent God and he could not respond to you even if he wanted to, although that idea itself contradicts what a transcendent God is.

The miracle of the Incarnation explains this.

A transcendent God would be unknowable and dispassionate and definitely not a "Father". If you want a God who is a "Father" he must be immanent

He can be both immanent and transcendent. God IS love and shows that love through His immanence.

In fact, you will probably respond that that role is taken by Christ who is both by nature God and man. What that does is admit that a human nature is required for God to interact with us- and Catholics find that immanence in Christ- correctly of course.

But the Father himself cannot be a Father unless he is also immanent so I see the Catholic position as trying to hold two incompatible positions at once- that Christ has at once a transcendent nature and an immanent nature.

That's like saying he is everywhere and somewhere at the same time. The problem is that is linguistically contradictory.

Yes, this is one of the mysteries of Faith: 100% God and 100% man which adds up to 100%. It is, as you say "incompatible" and "contradictory" in the sense that it is a paradox, and remember my (and others') contention that often the best way to talk about the ineffable and ultimately mysterious nature of God is to use paradox. Paradox is to the theology of the nature of God what mathematics is to modern physics -- the best way to understand concepts that defy common sense.

The very word "transcendent" means that such a perspective is outside of human experience and unintelligible to humans- so why try to explain it?

Because God has given us clues to understanding His nature, and an intellect and will to follow those clues to a partial understanding. And to some, he is given direct unmediated experiences.

It just gets Catholics into trouble I think.

Every religion has its mysteries

[mfbukowski]

I think my ex-uncle (divorced from my aunt who is biologically related to me), who was a drunk, ponce performed the "ritual of tyolmw with Ktkoan" in another universe. And it wasn't ptretty.

[MiserereNobis]

All times and all places does not equate to God not being in time or in space. You're contradicting yourself.

Before time and place, there was God.

Sheesh. Why is it so hard for you to use some common sense to see that you're not making sense on this issue?

You know, one the one hand your profile name fits -- you are as obsessed with common sense being the end-all as Ahab was over the white whale. On the other hand, Ahab didn't use much common sense in pursuing his obsession...

At the least you should be able to say he is in time and space by virtue of the fact that he is in all of time and all of space.

That would at least make some sense. But, no, you have to say he is "not" in time or in space, and that's just silly.

As I said above, before time and place, there was God, so obviously he existed before time and place which means he existed outside of time and place.

[mfbukowski]

When they have a direct unmediated experience with a transcendent God, they try their best to explain it to us. Obviously their explanations are full of paradox and linguistic contradiction, because logical though and linguistics cannot transcend. However, the explanations can point us towards transcendence, to catch the glimpse, or, in the case of mystic, to experience the glimpse.

I don't think we can catch a glimpse of any direct experience with God or without God unless we have experienced it ourselves as well.

You know the difference between the sound of a trumpet and a violin as well as I do, but could you explain the difference to a deaf person so they could actually understand if they somehow magically were able to now experience it - so that they could tell the difference?

No way.

And yes, we all have our mysteries.

[mfbukowski]

Before time and place, there was God.

Not a great argument- but ours is no better.

We could go around on that one for eternity ourselves. Yes there was no there wasn't etc-- for eternity.

Neither of us have much evidence either way, nor is there any way to determine who is right. I vote on leaving that in the "unspeakable" category as far as being able to solve it in a debate.

Edited September 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

I don't think we can catch a glimpse of any direct experience with God or without God unless we have experienced it ourselves as well.

You know the difference between the sound of a trumpet and a violin as well as I do, but could you explain the difference to a deaf person so they could actually understand if they somehow magically were able to now experience it - so that they could tell the difference?

No way.

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.

[Ahab]

The idea that a being can exist outside of time and/or space.

Okay, now I'm sure that those who believe that are believing nonsense. And that's not necessarily an insult. Maybe they just don't know the difference between common sense and nonsense.

Modern physics defies common sense and yet ultimately is true (well, at least not yet disproven, but let's not get into the philosophy of science as a distraction).

Pinpoint something specific, please. I know at least something about "physics" is true, such as physics having something to do with some things some people think are physical.

So, if we keep your strict dichotomy, we'd have to say that something that is true (modern physics) is nonsense.

That has yet to be proven. Tell me something specific about modern physics that you believe is nonsense.

However, I think there is a middle ground: something can be true and defy common sense and yet not be nonsense because it makes sense in a way that is not common. For modern physics, this way is mathematics. For theology/philosophy of timelessness, this way is paradox.

I have yet to experience anything which is true which defies common sense. You, on the other hand, seem to have no trouble believing something can be true even though it can defy common sense. Maybe that's where we differ, and I prefer to use common sense when I'm trying to learn about anything which is true.

As long as you keep strictly holding to common every day experience as the measuring stick of the evidence you'll accept, I cannot fulfill your request.

You haven't so far, but maybe you will, eventually, if you ever want to try using some common sense to explain your beliefs.

I hope, however, that through the repeated repeated repeated examples of modern physics, I'm showing that your measuring stick of common sense isn't always necessary.

Okay, one more example of modern physics which you believe is nonsense and yet is true, please. My goal will be to see if that will make any sense to me, while using some common sense.

If you point to a time frame and say "God is at this when" then you have now excluded him from other whens.

Nope, not true. God being in one moment in time doesn't preclude him from being in some other moment(s) in time.

Try again?

If you point out a location and say "God is here" then you have excluded him from other heres.

Nope, not true. God being in one location doesn't preclude him from being in some other location(s) in time.

Try again?

If you say God is everywhere and everywhen, you are also logically saying that God is nowhere and nowhen, so there is no single where or when that holds God.

Nope, not true. Everywhere does not equate to nowhere, and everywhen does not equte to nowhen. Those are opposites, not equals.

Please see my discussion of the Incarnation above for some further points on this idea.

I've seen it. See my response.

Sure, but I found it humorous that on another thread I was told to not follow common sense when thinking about the Book of Abraham. Perhaps you should go join that thread and show how common sense solves the Book of Abraham translation issues

Maybe I will. But then again I have limits on the time I can spend to discuss an issue in a thread on this board.

[MiserereNobis]

Not a great argument- but ours is no better.

We could go around on that one for eternity ourselves. Yes there was no there wasn't etc-- for eternity.

Neither of us have much evidence either way, nor is there any way to determine who is right. I vote on leaving that in the "unspeakable" category as far as being able to solve it in a debate.

Yes, I agree, like, as you pointed out earlier, would Wittgenstein

[Ahab]

Before time and place, there was God.

That's an assertion you have made but have yet to prove while using some common sense. It's not even reasonable.

Try looking at the word "Before" that you are using. When?

You: "Before time and place".

When was that?

You: "Before time and place"

Huh?

You: "Before time and place" Don't you get it?

Me: No. That doens't make sense, dude.

You: Well, it's not supposed to. It's a mystery. It's nonsense and yet it is true.

Me: Dude, get a grip. Where did you even get an idea like that? Why would you believe that? Can you explain it to me, while using some common sense?

You: Nope. Sorry. You won't get that from me.

Me: Let's just say we had a good time talking with each other while sharing what we believe is true with each other, and leave it at that. Okey dokey? Maybe some other time you'll be more open to what I was trying to teach you.

God is somewhere and somewhen, even if that means he is everywhere and everywhen. And no, that isn't nonsense.

[MiserereNobis]

That has yet to be proven. Tell me something specific about modern physics that you believe is nonsense.

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. 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?

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.

I have yet to experience anything which is true which defies common sense. You, on the other hand, seem to have no trouble believing something can be true even though it can defy common sense. Maybe that's where we differ, and I prefer to use common sense when I'm trying to learn about anything which is 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.

Okay, one more example of modern physics which you believe is nonsense and yet is true, please. My goal will be to see if that will make any sense to me, while using some common sense.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Nope, not true. God being in one moment in time doesn't preclude him from being in some other moment(s) in time.

Nope, not true. God being in one location doesn't preclude him from being in some other location(s) in time.

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?

Nope, not true. Everywhere does not equate to nowhere, and everywhen does not equte to nowhen. Those are opposites, not equals.

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. 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.

[Ahab]

Not a great argument- but ours is no better.

We could go around on that one for eternity ourselves. Yes there was no there wasn't etc-- for eternity.

Neither of us have much evidence either way, nor is there any way to determine who is right. I vote on leaving that in the "unspeakable" category as far as being able to solve it in a debate.

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

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.

Place: That's all about "where" something is, and everything is somewhere if it is true. Heck even things that aren't true are somewhere, in a sense, even if only in someone's imagination.

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. What Father is not a Son to someone else? 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.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Ahab