God And Ontology

[Serg]

By far, Thomas Aquinas has been the very first to assert of the ontological status of the Christian God. Is his prerogative, that(deriving it from aristotle's first Motor), for every effect there must de facto be a cause. Hence, as the world in religion(most religious concepts) is viewed as an effect(a sublime one indeed), therefore a Cause must be it's author. Now, the concept of how the world can be viewed as a great effect(designed or not is another story) is as old as Plato, and it's best contestant was Hume by far, but this is another topic. Where I go. Given the fact that this is an effect(designed according to theism), we may very well trace it's origins along a chain of events, but, says Aquinas, we must stop at some point where we would have to encounter a first Motor, an unmoved Mover, th ekey to the chain effect.
Thus, if we portray a first Cause to the chain, such Cause would have to be eternal, for if it were not, we would then have to move on to th enext Cause available(the cause of the cause, and so on). Now, we may endlessly go through that chain, or probabilisticly stop it at some point and recognize teh first Cause's eternal existance. Now, as to ontology. Ontology deals with whether some given X exists contingently or necessarily. An example might be that my hair color is accidental(thus contingent, for it could have very well be of another color). Now, my nature(of character) is fundamental to me(that is also accidental) but it defines me well, instead of a changing hair color. Now God must be the ultimate unalterable Cause, necessary to existance.
Most Christians understand this quality of God to be necessary to Him. They say that God as an individual must have eternally existed. So there could'nt be any time, where God(the one we know of at least) was not God. Or even further(even if we admit to many Gods) there couldnt be a time with no Gods. We mormons see it rather differently. Although it varies from mormon to mormon, there are few theories of thought in Mormon scholars and laymen that differ to this:
1) the consequential: this is the view that agrees with most christians, that God as an individual always existed no matter what. Only few mormons believe this.
2) the far reaching: this helds that individuals(all intelligent ones) have always existed with equal ontological status, both God and men. There are two of this one, a) that there is no children or parents in heaven but all an eternal number of intelligences(limited), b ) that all exist from eternities past, BUT, there is children and parents(some how)
3) the institutional: this holds th e1st part of number 2, but adds that the status of God, is what it is eternal, God as an institution has ontological status. Not the individuals, for all individuals(even from eternities past) are contingent in some sense, they existed(in terms of their essenses-matter) eternally, but were not eternal individuals. Hence they were beggoten, they grew up, they learned, etc...

Based on this, mormons often postulate that there was a time when God(be it Elohim, OR Jehova, OR the HG, OR any Other(s),etc...) was NOT God, this is, did not HAVE or ocupate the God Office. This is not to say that there was a time when there was NO GOD, but a time when ALL Gods(or any God) was NOT particularly a God. This is to say the same of humans but with an origin difference. There was a time when Dr.T was NOT a human(did not EXIST as to earthly dimension is predicable-did not occupy that status), also a tiem when ANY human being in the whole history was NOT a human being(prior to being such). But that is not to say that there was a time where there were NO human beings at all(at least, within the history were humans as a race existed, but Plato as a particular, could have not exsited at all). Now apply this to God, but change the origin. We may logically say to my analogy that there was a time indeed when NO human beings existed(I am talking of this earth). Now, of course that is so. But change that, and give Godhood an ontological status, then you have, that although there was a time when Elohim was not a God(or God), there has always somone else been a God(s). There has been no time(within eternity) when there was no Ruling Entity. Just that there was a time when every single one of them(in different moments!) were not necessarily respective God(s).
Now, I am only showing this, I believe in it, but a bit differently, I just wanted to see what do others say on this, on how it conflicts with "standard" theism. Or how other mormons view Godhood.

Regards,

[Serg]

Guess not everybody is into such reflexive gibberish as me LOL

[Tsuzuki]

What's the point of ontology, again? Didn't it coexists with such ideas as primal atoms? We already smashed the later, yet ontology still remains. Why?

[prisonchaplain]

My understanding is that the real distinction is not in God's eternal existence, but our own. LDS do believe God existed eternally--as have we all.

On the other hand, most other Christians believe that humans began at creation--that there was no premortal existence. Thus, the distinction between God and man is far greater. Furthermore, God's nature has not changed, progressed, etc.--He has always been what He is.

"Ontology," if I'm not mistaken, relates more to the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, than to God's general character.

[Dr T]

Hello Serg,

I can agree with your idea that we (humans) did not exist at one point in time. The difficulty that I have with the above is the idea that an eternal being (God) did not exist eternally. If He didn't, He would not be eternal. It's a self defeating statement. If, however, as you propose, it was only a position and it was not occupied by any God (for however long) then we must also concede that there was never an "eternal being that was God." And thus, you worship an imperfect being. Something/someone that was not "always perfect" or "always existent" was not/is not a perfect being. The perfection breaks down, sir. As we've talked about, there is still the problem of traversing an infinite that is a logical absurdity. Someone (forgive me for not remembering who) tries to solve this by saying that it is circular. I can't make this fit logically. Things do not circle back to being God of which it all began (in a true circle).

Dr. T

[BenRaines]

OK, what came first now? The chicken or the egg?

Serg, did you get your mission call yet?

Ben Raines

[CrimsonKairos]

The chicken nor the egg came first. It was the rooster! Can't have an egg without a chicken AND a rooster.

[prisonchaplain]

OK, what came first now? The chicken or the egg?
Ben Raines
[/b]

The chicken. God created people and animals, not embryos.

[CrimsonKairos]

Actually I changed my mind. It wasn't the chicken, rooster or egg that came first. It was the test-tube. God inserted the chicken embryo into the test-tube and nurtured it until fully developed. Hahahaha, j/k.

[Dr T]

Maybe the first chicken had something to do with chicken stem cell research?