The Destruction of God?

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

God is a real person with a glorified tangible human body.  I would never say he is a "thing which exists in reality".  I have no understanding what any of those words mean to be honest.  Sorry.  I am not smart enough to understand that level of abstraction.  Define "reality".  Define how people are "things".   Define "exists".   Seriously.

No one has been successful in defining those words coherently in 2000 years that I am aware of.

Show me where I said God exists outside of reality?  Dunno what that means either.

I am sorry I do not believe that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon infallibly or that it is God Breathed.   I believe is an inspired translation of the writings of a prophet - a human being speaking in human words, from a previous and pre-philosophical culture who may have spoken that way.  Maybe Joseph got it right , maybe he didn't.

I think the highlighted words should simply be translated "And if God has not these as part of his character, there is no God"  Those chararacter traits DEFINE what we think God should be, so God could not fit our definition of "God" if he were not righteous etc.  An evil god just isn't "God" and would not be worthy of worship.

Anything else makes positively no sense and is sectarian thinking.  I am sure Joseph never thought of these issues, but who would suspect he would?

Hey I know we are buddies but this is just the way Thomas Aquinas would see it- in speaking about "substance".  Before he died, Thomas saw his errors and said: 

Reply as you like but I probably will not answer more.  It is an important distinction to me and I think our friendship is more valuable than arguing over words. 

I feel you perhaps do not understand the importance of this distinction- it is the difference between the Godhead being "One in purpose" vs being "consubstantial"  Immaterial substances are not "real" "things".

For the sake of clarity, let’s take your post one item at a time.

What follows are three of the long-accepted definitions of the word ‘thing’ that I copied and pasted from the Yahoo Online Dictionary...

1) all that can be described in the specified way: "his love for all things Italian"

2) an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being: "I'm not a thing, not a work of art to be cherished"

3) a living creature or plant: "the sea is the primal source of all living things on earth" 

 In light of the above three definitions, can you  think of anything that exists that isn’t a thing, and if you can will you please name at least one of those things?

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand what you are saying. Of course justice and mercy are not things that substantially exist in space. I'm not sure about time, though.  However, it seems to me that Lehi and others in the Book of Mormon treat mercy and justice as more than just attributes, qualities,  verbs, as you indicate. I am intrigued that the Book of Mormon even entertains the notion that God could cease to be God if he did operate with the perfect balance of these things....wisdom, power, justice, and mercy. Certainly they cannot be measured by weight or breadth, but having them in sufficient quantity and quality appears to be requisite for Godhood.

This way of thinking was common in the ancient world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus in Greece as well as in Persia and Assyria which was probably current around the time Lehi left Jerusalem.  Zoroastrianism and the ideas of "emanations" which are similar to "substance" has been said to have influenced Plato, and could well have been available in Jerusalem before Lehi left.

But the very idea of "substance" meaning "property"  in Hebrew, - that which supports one, one's property, as we might use the term "a man of substance"to describe someone wealthy" for the ancient Hebrews becomes something entirely different to the Platonized Greeks where substance becomes a kind of underlying reality or "Being" or "hypostasis" in the New Testament- reflecting the apostasy already in place- the adoption of pagan Greek philosophy into the very fiber of even the New Testament.

Quote

 

SUBSTANCE

sub'-stans (rekhush; hupostasis):

Lit. that which stands under, is in the Bible used chiefly of material goods and possessions. In the Old Testament it is the translation of numerous Hebrew words, of which rekhush, "that which is gathered together," is one of the earliest and most significant (Genesis 12:5; 13:6; 15:14; 1 Chronicles 27:31; Ezra 8:21, etc.). In the New Testament "substance" appears in a few passages as the translation of ousia, "being," "subsistence" (Luke 15:13), huparxis, "goods," "property" (Hebrews 10:34), huparchonta, "things at hand" (Luke 8:3). Special interest attaches to Hebrews 11:1, the King James Version "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for," etc., where the word is used in its proper etymological sense as the translation of hupostasis, "that which stands under." the Revised Version (British and American) changes to "assurance," margin "the giving substance to," which last seems best to bring out the idea of faith as that which makes the things hoped for real to the soul. The same Greek word hupostasis is rendered "substance" in Hebrews 1:3 the Revised Version (British and American), instead of the King James Version "person," with reference to Christ, "the very image (margin "impress") of his substance," i.e. of God's invisible essence or being, the manifestation of God Himself.

W. L. Walker

 

So we go from "riches" underlying and upholding one's ability to live well, to an underlying "reality" or "being" which underlies all "existence"

The simple becomes "Platonized" and a chair becomes the manifestation of "chairness", the person of God and his solid reality becomes "Being" which can be shared with others in the Trinity.

And the apostasy begins.

So my advice is that we stop thinking like ancient Greeks and act as if the gospel has been restored to its simplicity, that God has a tangible body and is not an immaterial substance which makes up the Trinity.

These are the issues here in these few simple words.  Words ARE the way we think.

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

For the sake of clarity, let’s take your post one item at a time.

What follows are three of the long-accepted definitions of the word ‘thing’ that I copied and pasted from the Yahoo Online Dictionary...

1) all that can be described in the specified way: "his love for all things Italian"

2) an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being: "I'm not a thing, not a work of art to be cherished"

3) a living creature or plant: "the sea is the primal source of all living things on earth" 

 In light of the above three definitions, can you  think of anything that exists that isn’t a thing, and if you can will you please name at least one of those things?

an immaterial substance

God

existence itself

beauty

blue

big

justice 

mercy 

love

How long should I go on?

Philosophy is not about dictionaries.  It is about logic.

Edited February 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Does "chairness" exist apart from chairs?  Does human nature exist apart from humans?  Does "blue" exist apart from blue things?

If your answer is "yes" you are a Neoplatonist and probably Catholic. 

Where are they and how does "blue" exist on its own?   These are called "adjectives" they are no mysterious substances floating around somewhere.   What about size?   Where is "bigness"?  Wetness?  Heaviness? How much does heaviness weigh?

And no I do not think that is what Lehi and Alma meant at all. 

If you can explain how "blue" "exists" apart from blue things, please expound.

We are ranging far into the rough. I would prefer to swing for the green. Can God cease to be God as per Lehi and Alma because of a lack or loss of those attributes and virtues specified by Lehi? I realize this is in the realm of serious speculation, but at least two prophets who saw God and lived broached the idea.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

wasn't sure I should post

 

Feel free, but please address the topic in the OP.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

an immaterial substance There is no such thing as an immaterial substance. It is a false concept that doesn’t actually exist. The only thing that does exist about it is the literary term that humans have given to the false concept.

God God is a thing because he is a living material creature. You may not like the fact that one of the accepted definitions of the word ‘thing’ is a living creature and therefore choose to reject that definition and make up your own, but, like it or not, in the English language a living creature with a body of flesh and bone can properly be called a thing.

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1)

existence itself Existence is a thing because it refers to the sum total of all the things that actually do exist. Just because in the word all things that exist are lumped into one large group, that doesn’t mean each individual thing that exists in the large group doesn’t exist on its own.

beauty Beauty is a very real individually experienced phenomenon of perception that takes place within material human brains, generated when electrical and chemical impulses take place within the brain. Just because beauty cannot exist outside of the mind doesn’t mean that it can’t be experienced and appreciated as a genuine reality within the mind. Denying that individual perceptions of beauty are real is tantamount to denying that the human mind is real (for all I know, you may believe that 😏)

blue The color blue may not exist outside of the human mind but it is a very real perception within the human mind that can be replicated and recognized again, again and again by billions of human eyes working in conjunction with billions of human brains. To say that the color blue isn’t real is to deny that very the real electrical activities that take place within billions of human brains isn’t real. 

big Big may not exist as a stand alone abstract concept, but as long as some things are viewed by human eyes and brains as being bigger than other things, the perception that some things are bigger than others will always be reliable and very real within the realm of the brain.

justice, mercy, love All of these things (yes, I just stopped to realize I used the word things without even thinking about it) exist as a consequence of electrical and and chemical activity within the human brain. That electrical and chemical activity is real and the thoughts and emotions created by that activity are just as real. Please notice in the following verse from 2 Nephi 2 that Lehi uses the word ‘things’ when referring to words that speak of relative moral virtue, or the lack thereof, that you used in your post in order to set me straight.

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

How long should I go on? Philosophy is not about dictionaries.  It is about logic. The several long-accepted meanings of the word ‘thing’ are found all throughout the scriptures (look up the word thing in the scripture section of LDS.org and see for yourself), but is it right and fair to just ignore this inconvenient fact because you don’t want it to be true? Hopefully we can now leave this arcane silliness behind us and move on to the next item on the list. 😏

 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We are ranging far into the rough. I would prefer to swing for the green. Can God cease to be God as per Lehi and Alma because of a lack or loss of those attributes and virtues specified by Lehi? I realize this is in the realm of serious speculation, but at least two prophets who saw God and lived broached the idea.

It's not speculation to me in my view- it is true by definition when you see it in its simpicity.

The very idea these virtues defines our requirements for believing in God in the first place.  Would you worship a God who is unjust, mean, capricious and cruel?

What's to worship?   Even I can be better than a God who is thought to have that kind of character!  Why would I worship such a being?

That is really the power of a Human God as we have in Mormonism- He has all the traits of an Ideal Human Being by definition and so is someone we can emulate.  Through the ages Christians have looked to Christ to manifest ideal human values for us to emulate.  The very notion of "What would Jesus do?" shows this.

Would we ask that if Jesus was seen as a scoundrel?  Of course not!

And how does one aspire to be a Spirit or Substance which fills the universe but is small enough to dwell in your heart?  THAT to me is the power of Mormonism- our God is not only the Ideal Human, He is also by definition then, the perfect Human we can all aspire to be like.

In fact I am ready to say that for me the Mormon conception of God is the only conception I find even worthy of worship for those reasons.   Three clouds of substance merged into one cloud don't exactly do it for me.    And how can a cloud of substance be a "person"?   How one aspire to be an immaterial substance?

This whole idea of immaterial substances floating around is precisely what is wrong with sectarian Christianity.  Mormons are materialists- because spirit IS matter, but more refined

I cannot imagine why any Mormon would believe in immaterial substance especially in speaking about the attributes of God.  It is totally non- Mormon.

Edited February 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

 

OK good!  Write a book on theology and you will be famous!!    I am sorry I was unable to write a single word for you to understand.

And Sorry- your post would not quote.  If you want to make comments on a post line by line, I suggest you use the quote function and cut and paste the person's words into a quote box and your responses below the quote box.   It makes it easier to see who said what.

Hope you have a great day!

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

OK good!  Write a book on theology and you will be famous!!    I am sorry I was unable to write a single word for you to understand.

And Sorry- your post would not quote.  If you want to make comments on a post line by line, I suggest you use the quote function and cut and paste the person's words into a quote box and your responses below the quote box.   It makes it easier to see who said what.

Hope you have a great day!

 

How do you know I didn’t understand a single thing you wrote when we’re only on item one of your post?

The thing I find so  mystifying is that as a result of spending some quality time focusing on how the word thing (things) is used in the scriptures, I’ve discovered that throughout holy writ the very things you steadfastly maintain aren’t actual things are invariably described as being actual things by the prophets. For example, the scriptures refer to justice and mercy as being real things that actually exist within the eternal framework of opposition in all things, and that both of these things have their opposite, injustice and implacable vengeance respectively.

The fact is that justice and mercy are so real and so powerful that only an atoning sacrifice of infinite and eternal suffering, endured by God himself, could bring harmonious coexistence to these two very powerful and demanding opposing forces. The prophets teach that us that thoughts are things, ideas are things, human qualities are things and divine attributes are things that exist as powerful motivating forces that course through the human brain with millions of electrical impulses.

But if we can’t even agree that when Lehi speaks of all things having their opposite, including Almighty God himself, then it hardly seems possible that we can have a coherent and edifying discussion. But I’m still willing to try..

Edited February 3, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

How do you know I didn’t understand a single thing you wrote when we’re only on item one of your post?

The thing I find so  mystifying is that as a result of spending some quality time focusing on how the word thing (things) is used in the scriptures, I’ve discovered that throughout holy writ the very things you steadfastly maintain aren’t actual things are invariably described as being actual things by the prophets. For example, the scriptures refer to justice and mercy as being real things that actually exist within the eternal framework of opposition in all things, and that both of these things have their opposite, injustice and implacable vengeance respectively.

The fact is that justice and mercy are so real and so powerful that only an atoning sacrifice of infinite and eternal suffering, endured by God himself, could bring harmonious coexistence to these two very powerful and demanding opposing forces. The prophets teach us that thoughts are things, ideas are things, human qualities are things and divine attributes are things that exist as powerful motivating forces that course through the human brain with millions of electrical impulses.

But if we can’t even agree that when Lehi speaks of all things having their opposite, including Almighty God himself, then it hardly seems possible that we can have a coherent and edifying discussion. But I’m still willing to try..

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

How do you know I didn’t understand a single thing you wrote when we’re only on item one of your post?

The thing I find so  mystifying is that as a result of spending some quality time focusing on how the word thing (things) is used in the scriptures, I’ve discovered that throughout holy writ the very things you steadfastly maintain aren’t actual things are invariably described as being actual things by the prophets. For example, the scriptures refer to justice and mercy as being real things that actually exist within the eternal framework of opposition in all things, and that both of these things have their opposite, injustice and implacable vengeance respectively.

The fact is that justice and mercy are so real and so powerful that only an atoning sacrifice of infinite and eternal suffering, endured by God himself, could bring harmonious coexistence to these two very powerful and demanding opposing forces. The prophets teach that us that thoughts are things, ideas are things, human qualities are things and divine attributes are things that exist as powerful motivating forces that course through the human brain with millions of electrical impulses.

But if we can’t even agree that when Lehi speaks of all things having their opposite, including Almighty God himself, then it hardly seems possible that we can have a coherent and edifying discussion. But I’m still willing to try..

The scriptures are written by men.  I believe the scriptures are true insofar as they are translated correctly, and they were all translated before these distinctions were understood.

The scriptures are not God-Breathed and infallible.  I am not sure why this is so hard.  I suggest you read Kevin Christensen's presently running thread for further discussions on this very topic of clashing paradigms.

We are not the ancients and see the world very differently than they did.   We will never agree on this because we are coming from two different ways of seeing the world.

[nuclearfuels]

I think he's saying that: If opposition in all things didn't exist, then agency would be pointless - if we all had only one choice to make we would not progress; if all mankind never progressed by walking by faith and choosing the right, God would not be continually glorified by the righteous decisions and faith of his posterity.  Without that glory and having damned all of his creations by not giving them a way to progress, He would in fact be the opposite of a God and would instead be an advocate of Lucifer's proposed plan of forced and false progression (without agency, without faith, without opposition).

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The scriptures are written by men.  I believe the scriptures are true insofar as they are translated correctly, and they were all translated before these distinctions were understood.

The scriptures are not God-Breathed and infallible.  I am not sure why this is so hard.  I suggest you read Kevin Christensen's presently running thread for further discussions on this very topic of clashing paradigms.

We are not the ancients and see the world very differently than they did.   We will never agree on this because we are coming from two different ways of seeing the world.

We are on two different ‘wavelengths. At this point in time, there’s not enough in common between us to be able to have a fruitful dialogue on this particular subject. How can we discuss 2 Nephi 2 in a meaningful if you’re going to say you don’t even know if Lehi’s words are inspired enough for anyone to be able to take him at his word. So much for the “most correct book.” See you on another thread. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

We are on two different ‘wavelengths. At this point in time, there’s not enough in common between us to be able to have a fruitful dialogue on this particular subject. How can we discuss 2 Nephi 2 in a meaningful if you’re going to say you don’t even know if Lehi’s words are inspired enough for anyone to be able to take him at his word. So much for the “most correct book.” See you on another thread. 

Spiritually it is and your interpretations are not the only possible ones.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

I think he's saying that: If opposition in all things didn't exist, then agency would be pointless - if we all had only one choice to make we would not progress; if all mankind never progressed by walking by faith and choosing the right, God would not be continually glorified by the righteous decisions and faith of his posterity.  Without that glory and having damned all of his creations by not giving them a way to progress, He would in fact be the opposite of a God and would instead be an advocate of Lucifer's proposed plan of forced and false progression (without agency, without faith, without opposition).

I’m curious how God’s status is connected to and dependent on the quantity of his posterity if that is what you mean. Perhaps I misunderstand. Reminds me of Terry Pratchett’s great book Small Gods. The power of the gods of his imaginary Discworld is determined by the numbers of their followers. The poor Turtle god is at the rock bottom with only one acolyte. He needs more.

Could you elabotate?

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I cannot imagine why any Mormon would believe in immaterial substance especially in speaking about the attributes of God.  It is totally non- Mormon.

I’m not sure that is what I am doing. I suspect we are talking past each other in that regard. Nevertheless, back to my question. Without those attributes (whether they are substantial or ethereal or undefinable or whatever is immaterial, so to speak), Lehi says God would cease to be God. Is that a meaningful statement?

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m not sure that is what I am doing. I suspect we are talking past each other in that regard. Nevertheless, back to my question. Without those attributes (whether they are substantial or ethereal or undefinable or whatever is immaterial, so to speak), Lehi says God would cease to be God. Is that a meaningful statement?

Yes, of course- I thought I had answered that?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70174-the-destruction-of-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209793104

It is true by definition.  God must be "worshipable" and without that, he could not be God.

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m curious how God’s status is connected to and dependent on the quantity of his posterity if that is what you mean. Perhaps I misunderstand. Reminds me of Terry Pratchett’s great book Small Gods. The power of the gods of his imaginary Discworld is determined by the numbers of their followers. The poor Turtle god is at the rock bottom with only one acolyte. He needs more.

Could you elabotate?

Perhaps he means this  http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Eternal_Progression.html

Quote

My first illustration is what we have come to call eternal progression. The phrase “eternal progression” is not found anywhere in the Standard Works, and we have no evidence that the phrase ever fell from the lips of Joseph Smith. When it first appeared in our conversations and literature I do not know. The scriptures do explicitly state that all who are exalted will enjoy the “fulness of the Father,” be “joint heirs” with him, and be equal with him in power, might, and dominion (see D&C 93:5–17; Rom 8:14–18; D&C 76:94–95; 84:33–41). Scores of scriptural passages attest that God has all wisdom and knowledge, both in heaven and on earth (see Mosi 4:9; 5:15). His knowledge is spoken of as being “infinite” (Psa 147:5). The only sense in which the scriptures sustain the idea that God progresses is in bringing to pass the exaltation of his children (Moses 1:39; D&C 130:4; 132:63).

 

[CV75]

On February 2, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Lehi teaches Jacob about the need for opposition in all things. Without it, He says, the creation would have had no purpose. Then he makes this shocking statement:

Opposition seems to be essential for existence. How would the absence of opposition destroy God? 

Thankfully, there is no absence of opposition, just as there is no absence of justice and mercy (Alma 42:25) or miracles (Mormon 9:19) and God does not cease to be God. But it does make sense that an absence of existence would mean there is no God, either.

But I think these Book of Mormon prophets were speaking not as if God could cease to exist, but that we treat Him as if He is not God (1 Nephi 19:7).

Edited February 4, 2018 by CV75

[rodheadlee]

On 2/2/2018 at 8:50 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Lehi teaches Jacob about the need for opposition in all things. Without it, He says, the creation would have had no purpose. Then he makes this shocking statement:

Opposition seems to be essential for existence. How would the absence of opposition destroy God? 

To me that means if there were no opposition to God, there would be no need for a God.

On 2/2/2018 at 8:50 AM, Bernard Gui said:

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/3/2018 at 7:44 PM, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps he means this  http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Eternal_Progression.html

My first illustration is what we have come to call eternal progression. The phrase “eternal progression” is not found anywhere in the Standard Works, and we have no evidence that the phrase ever fell from the lips of Joseph Smith.....

Quote

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God. [First Presidency declaration 1909]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

Is the quote referring to the eternal progression of God or of man? Does the evolution stop once man reaches a certain level of progress?

Edited February 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

To me that means if there were no opposition to God, there would be no need for a God.

 

What is the source of opposition to God?

In Sunday School today we discussed Elder McConkie’s Three Pillars of Eternity: Creation, Fall, Atonement. In order for something to be a pillar it must stand on some kind of foundation. According to Lehi, unless there is opposition and agency, there can be no Creation and no need for neither the Fall nor the Atonement. It seems to me then that the Three Pillars must stand on the foundation of opposition and agency. This suggests to me that agency is paramount...it is the very foundation of all existence. So we need a much more profound respect for agency. What do you think of that?

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thankfully, there is no absence of opposition, just as there is no absence of justice and mercy (Alma 42:25) or miracles (Mormon 9:19) and God does not cease to be God. But it does make sense that an absence of existence would mean there is no God, either.

But I think these Book of Mormon prophets were speaking not as if God could cease to exist, but that we treat Him as if He is not God (1 Nephi 19:7).

Lehi clearly states that without opposition, the attributes that make God God would be destroyed. It intrigues me that he could countenance that thought. 

How do you think God’s existence depends on opposition?

Edited February 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/3/2018 at 7:38 PM, mfbukowski said:

Yes, of course- I thought I had answered that?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70174-the-destruction-of-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209793104

It is true by definition.  God must be "worshipable" and without that, he could not be God.

Thanks. To be “worshipable” there must be entities that do the worshipping. As we evolve into Godhood through aeons of time do you believe we eventually gain that “worshipability?” 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What is the source of opposition to God?

In Sunday School today we discussed Elder McConkie’s Three Pillars of Eternity: Creation, Fall, Atonement. In order for something to be a pillar it must stand on some kind of foundation. According to Lehi, unless there is opposition and agency, there can be no Creation and no need for neither the Fall nor the Atonement. It seems to me then that the Three Pillars must stand on the foundation of opposition and agency. This suggests to me that agency is paramount...it is the very foundation of all existence. So we need a much more profound respect for agency. What do you think of that?

In my view...

All existence, no.  All progression, yes.

Without agency, I believe we would all be stagnant intelligences doing nothing save whatever eternal intelligences do in their version of couch potatoing.

Think of it as if we were eternal rocks...perhaps we could change from a rock to a pile of sand, but we would be forever acted upon while never acting.