New Blog Post

[_Droopy]

http://itsthepermanentthings.wordpress. ... existence/

[_bcspace]

Nice job. I like this:

The primary alternative is to believe that at one time, you did not exist at all in an absolute, consummate, metaphysically fundamental way. Your very being did not exist. Everything, every aspect of consciousness, perception, sentience, and potential that is you was absolutely and utterly without reality or being. You then came into existence, that is; the very essence that is the conscious, self aware, thinking, feeling perceiving, experiencing being that is you came into reality, or existence, in a moment from an illimitable metaphysical void. This is the standard Christian conception, for all intents and purposes.

Its interesting to point out that in traditional Christianity, while man is an infinite being (having a definite absolute beginning but going on forever into the future), in the Restored Gospel, man is an eternal being (having no beginning and no end to his existence). Here we have yet another way in which we are all made in the image of God: we are all eternal, self existent beings, even though unimaginably distant from God as to our relative levels of development as individual beings. It is nonetheless one of the most deeply profound insights found in the Restored Gospel that each of us may say with our Father in Heaven and his Son, Jesus Christ, as he himself said when he was known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, I am that I am. We are now. Therefore, we have always been. Was this not the case, we could never be.

[_vessr]

http://itsthepermanentthings.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/philosophical-implications-of-the-doctrine-of-preexistence/

Droopy, my comments below may not seem "tongue in cheek," but they kind of are. I.e., I'm just trying to pick a fight with you, because I think I can. Nothing personal at all!

Because you’ve posted a link to your blog in this forum, I guess that gives us the green light to critique your latest entry here. No doubt you are a smart, articulate person. The question is, does your philosophy hold up under scrutiny; i.e, have you proven ANYTHING by it. My answer is, No. Have you edified anyone by it? My answer is, again, No. Perhaps if you put your words into words that a child might understand, you can get closer to helping all of us understand.

Your reasoning and your logic are not as a child thinks or reasons. So we must apply adult standards to it.
There are not any more philosophical and doctrinal implications of the concept of the preexistence of individual spirits than there are for any concept of existence, pre, or post, or whatever. In other words, the concept of pre-existence is not any deeper than any other concept of reality. I feel, however, that you have tried to take the subject deeper than most reasonable minds can comprehend.

We either existed before we were born, or we didn’t. We will either exist after we die, or we won’t. In either case, we cannot prove it, using logic, or reasoning, or concepts of self-awareness. Going backward or forward, logic and reason will not help us in our quest to know for sure things of faith, such as whether we will live again after we die.

Your post to your blog on this subject sounds like you are saying you can prove a preexistence by logic or reason alone. Again, I say you cannot.

Perhaps we can agree that the beginnings of our attribute of self-awareness depend on whether we were aware of our self before we were born on this earth. As babies we certainly were not self-aware. That came later. So, how can we be sure that we were aware BEFORE we were babies?

The atheist would say “No, we didn’t exist before our birth and, therefore, we were not aware until some time after our birth into this existence.” The fundamentalist Christian would agree with the atheist in rare harmony with him. The agnostic would say, “I don’t know.” And the Mormon will say, “I know, by the power of the Holy Ghost, that I existed before I was born.” But that does not give us an objective basis for testing your theories of pre-existence.

Our existence now and our conscious awareness of it are ONLY evidence that we exist now and are aware of our existence now. It may also be said that we exist now even when we are unconscious (such as when we are asleep). So, even self-awareness is not related to existence in any meaningful way. Awareness only applies to the here and now, and while we are awake. In other words, there is NOTHING about our awareness now that can prove our existence before we were born. Thus, we cannot prove we existed before we were born. So, what do you believe you have proven by your blog? I don’t believe you have proven anything. Did you think that you had?
Existence is only an attribute of one’s “personal reality” when we are aware of our existence. However, when we sleep, we aren’t aware; but we still exist.

No one has come back from the dead and proven that he or she has come back (except as to matters of faith, such as in the resurrection of Christ). But matters of faith are not provable by their very definition. If you haven’t proved anything by your reasoning, what was the purpose of your post? You cannot prove anything by posting your rationale for existing. Again, what’s your point?

The fancy attributes you refer to, including consciousness, sentience, personality and perception abilities can be addressed in the same way. Either, no, we didn’t have them before we existed as human beings; or we don’t know; or we attach a belief system, whether it be the Mormon system of preexistence or another system such as reincarnation.

There is no express reference to preexistence in the Bible. Any alleged reference must be qualified with “according to the interpretation of the person making the claim.” For example, whether Christ meant the preexistence or his disciples when they talked about the man born blind is up for debate. Surely, most Christian would not take the view Mormons have taken concerning the discussion.

Why should a person who “does not as yet accept the possibility of new scripture, continuing revelation, and the existence of modern prophets, and does not recognize any such idea in the Biblical texts as we have them and as they are normatively understood by traditional Christians generally” think deeply about anything that Mormons want to discuss from a theological point of view? It's too deep.

[_Droopy]

Because you’ve posted a link to your blog in this forum, I guess that gives us the green light to critique your latest entry here.

Or any of the other essays there.

No doubt you are a smart, articulate person. The question is, does your philosophy hold up under scrutiny; i.e, have you proven ANYTHING by it. My answer is, No.

As a philosophical exploration of metaphysical concepts, I wasn't out to "prove" anything at all. For LDS, I intended to amplify and generate deeper and more imaginative critical thought and reflection on a concept they already understand to be true, but may have not reflected at length upon relative to some of its deeper implications (among which are, of course, the literal Fatherhood of God).

For others, I only desire to plant a seed that might grow into food for future thought.

Have you edified anyone by it?

I certainly hope I have.

There are not any more philosophical and doctrinal implications of the concept of the preexistence of individual spirits than there are for any concept of existence, pre, or post, or whatever.

They are quite unique in comparison to other theories/ideas of the origin of the soul or sentient entity that is the individual.

In other words, the concept of pre-existence is not any deeper than any other concept of reality. I feel, however, that you have tried to take the subject deeper than most reasonable minds can comprehend.

I'm really not sure at all what you're trying to say here. Are the mysteries of existence shallow? Are they facile or trite? Do they matter?

We either existed before we were born, or we didn’t. We will either exist after we die, or we won’t. In either case, we cannot prove it, using logic, or reasoning, or concepts of self-awareness. Going backward or forward, logic and reason will not help us in our quest to know for sure things of faith, such as whether we will live again after we die.

You seem to wish to throw up your hands in futility and not think about these kinds of things at all. That, of course, is your prerogative, but I prefer to think about them, and think hard about them. Why? Because they're the most important thinks we have to think about.

I don't know about the term "prove" here, but I am trying to show that, as I mentioned in that essay:

“existence” is defined not only as the property of any specific existing thing, but as a fundamental ontological axiom. In other words, “existence” qua existence is an eternal, essential, and inherent quality that transcends any particular form existence may take.

Existence, in other words, must exist; being, in some form, some manifestation, some developmental stage, is the fundamental reality. Non-existence is something that is, and hence, is self-contradictory.

Your post to your blog on this subject sounds like you are saying you can prove a preexistence by logic or reason alone. Again, I say you cannot.

The title, again, is the philosophical implications of the doctrine. The doctrine is a matter of revealed truth. Its implications and intellectual establishment as more than a matter of faith is important because it does make sense in a logically coherent way, even though its specific details can never be established in that manner.

Perhaps we can agree that the beginnings of our attribute of self-awareness depend on whether we were aware of our self before we were born on this earth. As babies we certainly were not self-aware. That came later. So, how can we be sure that we were aware BEFORE we were babies?

1. I would argue that self - awareness is not a necessary attribute of intelligent self-existence (are ants self aware?), and that that attribute can be latent or emergent in such an entity that itself is embryonic in a developmental sense, just as it is emergent in a mortal infant. LDS doctrine teaches the existence of a primordial entity, or intelligent essence that was never created and had always existed, co-eternal with existence itself, and was capable, over time, of developing its attributes and characteristics to the point of becoming like God. This intelligent entity was, in some manner, fused with spirit bodies generated by our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, to produce the "intelligences" spoken of in the Book of Abraham, or, in other words, a self-aware, perceiving, willing, individuated self or person.

At some point, it became self-aware, but the doctrine itself is not dependent upon or concerned with that particular aspect of the teaching. There is no doctrine as yet as to whether each of the eternally existing entities that became spirit sons and daughters of God were, in some sense, sentient, and my essay was not intended to grapple with that question (interesting as it is).

The atheist would say “No, we didn’t exist before our birth and, therefore, we were not aware until some time after our birth into this existence.” The fundamentalist Christian would agree with the atheist in rare harmony with him. The agnostic would say, “I don’t know.” And the Mormon will say, “I know, by the power of the Holy Ghost, that I existed before I was born.” But that does not give us an objective basis for testing your theories of pre-existence.

But why should there be a way to test this concept "objectively?" What would count as evidence? Science is quite out of the question as its methodology and perceptual field are wholly inadequate to that task.

Our existence now and our conscious awareness of it are ONLY evidence that we exist now and are aware of our existence now.

This may be true of your physical body, and the fundamental elements of which it is composed. The problem comes when one attempts to conceive of the sentient, self-aware, self-contemplating, perceiving "I" or individual, unitary consciousness as having never existed at all in some form. Non-existence, again, is a self-negating concept. Non-existence must exist to be intelligible as a proposition; it must be a state of being (the state of non-existence) against which existence is contrasted.

While the doctrine of preexistence stands as revealed knowledge from God for LDS, its philosophical implications here at least allow for the distinct possibility that, if non-being is logically impossible in a overall sense, then entities such as those comprising intelligent, organized beings such as ourselves may also be co-eternal with existence itself; we may be discreet, individual phenomena within an eternal field of space, matter, energy, and intelligence in which phenomena qua phenomena cannot not exist.

No one has come back from the dead and proven that he or she has come back (except as to matters of faith, such as in the resurrection of Christ). But matters of faith are not provable by their very definition. If you haven’t proved anything by your reasoning, what was the purpose of your post? You cannot prove anything by posting your rationale for existing. Again, what’s your point?

Why do I need to "prove" anything to you so long as the fundamental concepts is true? What really matters is that you can know for and within yourself that the idea is true, not that others can independently verify that knowledge for you objectively.

The fancy attributes you refer to, including consciousness, sentience, personality and perception abilities can be addressed in the same way. Either, no, we didn’t have them before we existed as human beings; or we don’t know; or we attach a belief system, whether it be the Mormon system of preexistence or another system such as reincarnation.

Again, the doctrine of the preexistence is given, for LDS. I never intended to logically establish the concept itself, only, as I said, its philosophical implications. Clearly, if you think the entire idea is hokum at the outset, its implications will be of no particular interest.

There is no express reference to preexistence in the Bible.

Which, for LDS, is wholly irrelevant.

Any alleged reference must be qualified with “according to the interpretation of the person making the claim.” For example, whether Christ meant the preexistence or his disciples when they talked about the man born blind is up for debate. Surely, most Christian would not take the view Mormons have taken concerning the discussion.

Most Christians believe that they were created "out of nothing," as was the cosmos, an idea which this essay is meant to work toward dismantling entirely.

Why should a person who “does not as yet accept the possibility of new scripture, continuing revelation, and the existence of modern prophets, and does not recognize any such idea in the Biblical texts as we have them and as they are normatively understood by traditional Christians generally” think deeply about anything that Mormons want to discuss from a theological point of view?

Why shouldn't they?

It's too deep.

Not according to the scriptures, or to modern revelation. We take the deep waters line upon line, degree by degree, here a little there a little.

[_vessr]

Dear Droopy,

Thanks for replying to my response. As I said, my response was partly tongue in cheek. The other
part, I think, was to see if I could keep up with you, mentally. I don’t think I can. In the end, i am no match, even though you were not intending this to be a joust.

You say that you weren’t “out to ’prove’ anything at all.” But I think that you WERE seeking to prove that one “can know for and within yourself that the idea is true . …” That’s my point. That is an element of promised proof.

But, no one can know within themselves for SURE that the concept is true. One can only “feel that it is right,” per Mormon doctrine. Feeling that it is right is supposed to verify its truthfulness; but instead it only verifies that it feels right. To say that one KNOWS something within themselves is in itself a offer of proof, it seems to me.

Although you “never intended to logically establish the concept itself, only, as I said, its philosophical implications,” you do acknowledge that your effort was meant to “dismantling entirely” the Christian concept that they were created out of nothing. How can one dismantle entirely something if they don’t think they can prove it? I still think you were trying to prove it, at least to that extent.

In any event, I enjoyed the sparring. But, as I say, I am no match. Most of what you write I don’t understand, because I don’t have your brilliant mind. Well done, if not well proved, which I now realize you were not intended to do to begin with.

[_Droopy]

Dear Droopy,

Thanks for replying to my response. As I said, my response was partly tongue in cheek. The other
part, I think, was to see if I could keep up with you, mentally. I don’t think I can. In the end, i am no match, even though you were not intending this to be a joust.

That's quite something, vesser, as most critics of the Church here think me to be an unreconstructed dolt of the lowest possible educational and intellectual level. Now that you've commended me, you'll probably be targeted for reeducation soon enough.

You say that you weren’t “out to ’prove’ anything at all.” But I think that you WERE seeking to prove that one “can know for and within yourself that the idea is true . …” That’s my point. That is an element of promised proof.

Yes, but that wasn't a part of the essay, which was about philosophical implications, not the witness of the Spirit which reveals and imprints truth upon the soul in an unmistakable and indelible manner.

But, no one can know within themselves for SURE that the concept is true. One can only “feel that it is right,” per Mormon doctrine.

This is a serious misunderstanding of LDS doctrine upon this point. The term "feel" as used in the scriptures is much deeper and encompasses much more than its normal dictionary definition, and it has, need I say, philosophical implications. That witness has been described by many, and the term "feel" is not the only term used to articulate its meaning.

Feeling that it is right is supposed to verify its truthfulness; but instead it only verifies that it feels right. To say that one KNOWS something within themselves is in itself a offer of proof, it seems to me.

The Holy Spirit bears witness to all gospel truths (and all truth) through his power to reveal and implant a direct perception and knowledge of truth within us, his spirit communicating directly with ours. The direct apprehension of a truth comes with a witness of its truth, which is a pure perception and awareness that one knows. That' s about as best I can explain it.

Although you “never intended to logically establish the concept itself, only, as I said, its philosophical implications,” you do acknowledge that your effort was meant to “dismantling entirely” the Christian concept that they were created out of nothing. How can one dismantle entirely something if they don’t think they can prove it? I still think you were trying to prove it, at least to that extent.

Its just the point that the idea of creation out of nothing is logically and conceptually impossible because the concept of "nothing" as understood in traditional Christian theology is logically and conceptually impossible.

If you exist now, then this is the best evidence you have that you have always existed (in some form, not necessarily as a self-aware, organized personality) because it makes no sense to say that you, in some ultimate, transcendent sense, never existed. This is because that state - absolute, transcendent non-existence - cannot be rationally conceived or linguistically articulated without denying that which is asserted.

[_Droopy]

The reasons why I say that the best evidence for our eternal existence is our very existence now, can be found in these parts of the essay:

The crux of this proposition is that it is logically and conceptually impossible for anything, in some form or at some level of phenomenal manifestation, ever to have not existed. At the root of this claim is the observation that the concept of “nothing” is itself a positive conceptual category about which distinct claims of existence are made. When we say “there is nothing” we have made a positive claim about the existence of a specific condition or phenomena. We have said that a certain condition exists in the universe, a primary attribute of which is the absence of something or some set of phenomena we otherwise would expect or assume to have been there. Nothingness is the absence of coherent or recognizable phenomena. Nothingness, therefore, is itself an existing, definable condition within the universe that one can make positive claims about. We may say “There is nothing there” or, “I see nothing”, but in doing so we are making positive statements about an actually existing state of affairs: the absence of some phenomena or set of phenomena that otherwise might “exist” within the region of “nothing”. “Nothingness”, therefore, is a relative perception, and outside of the rarefied philosophical abstractions of Neo-Platonic metaphysical speculation, it can only tell us what is perceptually absent; what is missing relative to what might or should be there and relative to the other phenomena around it only in relation to which the missing phenomena or thing could have any perceptual reference.

Even to say “There is nothing” is to make a positive claim about the existence of something; that is, the existence of the condition or state of nothingness. To say “I was created out of nothing”, or “The universe was created out of nothing” is simply to say that our ‘”souls” or the universe were created or brought out of an already existing condition or state. We cannot so much as talk about the concept “nothing” without making positive statements about its existence.

“Nothing” is a perceptual reference frame used to differentiate between coherent, understandable phenomena and their absence. “Nothing” cannot exist as an absolute, ontological category for the simple reason that for “nothing” to be conceived in this way, it must also exist. “Nothing” is an actually existing state of affairs in comparison and contrast to which other things are classified or referenced.. In all these senses, the doctrine of creation out of nothing becomes creation out of something; out of an existing state or condition of relative relations between matter, energy, and consciousness.

This is why I say that our existence now (and our conscious awareness of it) is the best evidence we have that we (consciousness or intelligence in some form) have always existed. Existence and only existence is the fundamental attribute of reality.

Reality is existence, not just what actually happens within it. We need not specify the existence of what, only that everything that ever existed, now exists, or ever will, has always, in some manifestation, stage of development, or emergent potential, always existed. This is key, because if anything had never not existed at all in any absolute, transcendent sense, it never could have.

Only existence is real. Absolute, ontological nonexistence cannot exist, since if it did exist, it would exist, and its existence would negate its own nonexistence.

[_vessr]

Here is the sum and substance of your theorem and your proffer of proof:

“[T]he idea of creation out of nothing is logically and conceptually impossible because the concept of "nothing" as understood in traditional Christian theology is logically and conceptually impossible.”

But to the Christian who is not a Mormon, it is not impossible; for God can do anything. It’s the Mormons that limit God to a set of universal requirements by which he is bound.

Yes, I mistook your use of logic as an attempt at proof theory, which considers theorems as strings of formulas for establishing the truth of the matters you assert. I assumed you had put together a set of deduction rules that provided a formulaic approach to deriving truths from your set of premises concerning a preexistence. In other words, I thought your essay was using theorems, or axioms, to approach the truth of a preexistence.

I knew you were not attempting to prove a scientific theory; that is another matter. But I thought you were seeking to establish axioms or postulates, fundamental concepts accepted without proof, or “self-evident” (which I believe you were saying with the proffered proof above.)

Millions of theorems have been proven by logic alone. And I thought you were intending to add yours to the mix.

If your contribution was intended as a theorem, then I was hoping to find it expressed in formalized language, and that it satisfied logical conditions for establishing its truth. It appears that, for the most part, you were only using conjecture, which is not offered as proof.

But let’s go back to the beginning premise:

“[T]he idea of creation out of nothing is logically and conceptually impossible because the concept of ‘nothing’ as understood in traditional Christian theology is logically and conceptually impossible.”

But creation out of nothing IS logically and conceptually possible if God chooses to do it that way. After all, he is a God who can do ANYTHING. And if he can do anything, he could certainly make something out of nothing.

You would then say, I would assume, that God cannot do that, because he is bound by universal laws. But who are we to decide what those laws are.
I think most Christians would say it IS logically and conceptually possible to create something out of nothing, if you are God and you chose to do it that way. (“And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light”, etc.)

This all simply points out a difference between Christians and Mormons. It is only logically and conceptually impossible per your theorem above, if you are a Mormon and believe it to be such; otherwise, every Christian would be forced to think like a Mormon in things related to creation. But they aren’t and they don’t.

[_Droopy]

But to the Christian who is not a Mormon, it is not impossible; for God can do anything. It’s the Mormons that limit God to a set of universal requirements by which he is bound.

But minds can change. That why such a thing as "argument" in the philosophical sense, exists. God as understood in the restored gospel is not "limited." Its just the case that he cannot do anything.

Yes, I mistook your use of logic as an attempt at proof theory, which considers theorems as strings of formulas for establishing the truth of the matters you assert. I assumed you had put together a set of deduction rules that provided a formulaic approach to deriving truths from your set of premises concerning a preexistence. In other words, I thought your essay was using theorems, or axioms, to approach the truth of a preexistence.

No. I've never been very comfortable with purely deductive attempts to either prove or disprove God's existence.

I knew you were not attempting to prove a scientific theory; that is another matter. But I thought you were seeking to establish axioms or postulates, fundamental concepts accepted without proof, or “self-evident” (which I believe you were saying with the proffered proof above.)

Well, I do think that the idea of present existence being logically compelling evidence of past existence because of the concept of non-existence being logically impossible is a good argument, but again, its only implied by the doctrine of preexistence, which is given as revealed doctrine, and can only ultimately be known to be true in that sense.

But let’s go back to the beginning premise:

“[T]he idea of creation out of nothing is logically and conceptually impossible because the concept of ‘nothing’ as understood in traditional Christian theology is logically and conceptually impossible.”

But creation out of nothing IS logically and conceptually possible if God chooses to do it that way. After all, he is a God who can do ANYTHING. And if he can do anything, he could certainly make something out of nothing.

I don't see how simply claiming that God can do x makes it a logically coherent concept. You may believe it to be so (for whatever reason), but that does not establish any logical connections between premises and conclusions from which such a claim could be derived and substantiated. The idea that God can do absolutely anything (such as create square triangles or cause good to be evil and evil good), besides being unscriptural, does not, just by the claiming of it, or that others believe it, overcome the philosophical problems associated with it.

Could God, for example, create nothing out of nothing? What would it mean for him to do so? By my own argument, since "nothing" is actually, by the very claim made for its existence, a state of existence itself, one could answer in the affirmative. If, on the other hand, one means the absolute metaphysical void as understood in early Medieval Hellenistic influenced Christian theology, then one is in another realm entirely.

You would then say, I would assume, that God cannot do that, because he is bound by universal laws.

He is bound by the laws of eternity, or laws of ultimate reality, yes.

But who are we to decide what those laws are.

The restored Church of Jesus Christ teaches that He has revealed them to prophets in successive dispensations since Adam, so we needn't flail in the dark here.

I think most Christians would say it IS logically and conceptually possible to create something out of nothing, if you are God and you chose to do it that way. (“And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light”, etc.)

Which brings up another point, which is that the concept of creation ex nihilo is not biblical, and cannot be found in any biblical texts. Secondly, to establish a logical connection between one concept and another, one must have an evidential relation between assertions or propositions. As I pointed out in my essay, God may certainly create out of nothing, but with the understanding that the concept "nothing" is only a conceptual placeholder for "a state of being in which what we would normally expect to be present (objects, energy, phenomena as we understand them) are absent." Hence, the waters of chaos, present in the Genesis account (and all other ancient Near Eastern creation stories) are already existing "stuff," not non-existent transcendent, irreducible emptiness (whatever that might mean, but how do you describe "nothing" as understood in Catholic and Protestant theology?).

This all simply points out a difference between Christians and Mormons. It is only logically and conceptually impossible per your theorem above, if you are a Mormon and believe it to be such; otherwise, every Christian would be forced to think like a Mormon in things related to creation. But they aren’t and they don’t.

Actually, I think my critique of the concept of "nothing" here transcends denominational boundaries. "Nothing" is something; it is a state of affairs in the universe, albeit one in which objects, phenomena, and relationships with which we would be familiar or able to perceive with our normative senses are not present. Hence, we would say, "There's nothing here!"

In fact, there may be much, much "here." As the D&C says, there is no space without a kingdom, and no kingdom without space. Because we might not recognize much of that space as containing the kinds of "stuff" we would recognize as being said to "exist," that does not mean that nothing, in fact, exists within that space (and, is not empty space itself a thing, a state, and a phenomena? And if so, what is it "made of"?).