LDS Infinite Regression Impossible in the Finite

[in_servitude]

An “infinite regression” cannot be possible in a finite universe. (If there are only 10 to the 83rd power or so subatomic particles in the universe, then this will limit the regression to 10 to the 23rd or so power due to star limitations.) Therefore, the only way that the infinite regression can work is if there are an infinite number of universes.

Do these universes get created upon an LDS person’s passing? Or, do the infinite universes already exist and will continue to exist for however long? Are all of the universes exact copies of the universe that we are in?

 

[glendab]

What in the world is Infinite regression?

Glenda

 

[NeuroTypical]

You know, the only folks who have ever, ever asked my opinion about infinite regression, have been people trying to score a point against my religion.

And while I’m thinking about it, probably 90% of the folks trying to give me an opinion about it, are those same people.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Tarquin]

An “infinite regression” cannot be possible in a finite universe. (If there are only 10 to the 83rd power or so subatomic particles in the universe, then this will limit the regression to 10 to the 23rd or so power due to star limitations.) Therefore, the only way that the infinite regression can work is if there are an infinite number of universes.

I do not see it that way. If God can create “anything” and “any number” of anything - something I am leaning towards believing, with qualifications (e.g., whatever God creates must be “good,” “finite,” and “changeable”) - then he could have created an infinite number of universes.

We know there is one universe. There is no evidence for any other. In my opinion, respectfully, speculation about a multi-universe cosmos, unlike reasoning from a multi-galactic universe, has a value equal to speculation about a non-universe cosmos.

Do these universes get created upon an LDS person’s passing? Or, do the infinite universes already exist and will continue to exist for however long? Are all of the universes exact copies of the universe that we are in?

The LDS used to believe that a most righteous person could obtain a planet or solar system of his own over which he would be “God” and his wives would be his divine consorts. In the 1960s I heard some speculate that the only son of God who would be that righteous and therefore the only one who would obtain such a world or solar system would be Jesus Christ himself. Recently I have heard Mormons in adult Sunday School class maintain that there are no planets or worlds over which dead Mormons would serve as Gods, but we would all be in God’s heaven with the one and only God. The person who taught that, so far as I know, was not reprimanded, and I was not told that she was wrong - which I would expect someone to do if they wanted to make sure I was hearing “correct doctrine.” It’s hard for Mormons to accept the Bible, or even their own additional scriptures, with much confidence, in light of the fact that the teachings and doctrines do change over time.

 

[in_servitude]

You know, the only folks who have ever, ever asked my opinion about infinite regression, have been people trying to score a point against my religion.

And while I’m thinking about it, probably 90% of the folks trying to give me an opinion about it, are those same people.

Why do you think that is?

Can the LDS Church be the One True Church and the Catholic Church also be the One True Church? I doubt that is possible. Therefore, there is a built in contention. Google searches say that Joesph Smith, in a vision relating to which religion to go with, he was told, " I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt…" Thus, the LDS Church founder claims that the creeds of the Catholic Church is an abomination in God’s sight. You see, contention comes from the start.

Regardless of that, I do not know about the answers to my questions, and I would appreciate knowing those answers. It seems like the LDS Church would be able to answer these questions. If the LDS Church wanted to answer this question, it should be very simple since the profits are alive today.

 

[TexanKnight]

You know, the only folks who have ever, ever asked my opinion about infinite regression, have been people trying to score a point against my religion.

And while I’m thinking about it, probably 90% of the folks trying to give me an opinion about it, are those same people.

Why do you think that is?

you are wrong. It is not “scoring a point against you”

The better question is: why does truth about your beliefs and the teachings (past and present) that your leaders taught feel like attacks to you?

I would never want to be a part of a church where truth was considered attacks and teachings were a thing to run away from and deny

 

[NeuroTypical]

Can the LDS Church be the One True Church and the Catholic Church also be the One True Church? I doubt that is possible. Therefore, there is a built in contention.

Well, if it’s ok with you, I’m content with the contention being one sided only. I’m not here to contend with you, although you seem to consider yourself well-justified in contending with me. I don’t know - maybe the word contend is too contentious? How about we just keep it a civil argument?

My kids and my Catholic neighbor’s kids still play with each other, despite this situation. Just because we believe differently than each other, doesn’t mean I need to fight with them about it.

Regardless of that, I do not know about the answers to my questions, and I would appreciate knowing those answers.

Well, something to consider would be where you are asking the question. This is a Catholic board, set up by and peopled with folks who believe in the truth claims of the Catholic church, and therefore by default, disbelieve the truth claims of the LDS church. I’m not sure why you think it’s a good idea to come to such a place, to find out what the LDS church teaches. Should I go to an athiest or protestant message board to ask questions about what Catholics teach and believe?

When folks ask such questions, it’s usually done for one of two reasons. Either they really want to know the answer (in which case you should go somewhere peopled with active believing LDS), or they’re looking for an opportunity to argue for their viewpoint (which, given your words above, is what I’m guessing you want). Don’t get me wrong, I do plenty of the second one. I just did it one paragraph above.

My only response, as one of the very few active LDS on this board, is “I haven’t given it much thought”. It’s the truth. I honestly don’t really care one way or the other how such things work. My personal discipleship and desire to come unto Christ and be saved, doesn’t extend to demanding to know everything about Deity, or deep cosmological questions about origins of the universe or universes. I’ve got bigger things to worry about, like how to make a successful marriage and raise righteous children who will seek to follow God.

Folks like TexanKnight are now free to accuse my church of running away from and denying the truth, and create his usual strawmen about the poor mormon, feeling attacked by people who are only pointing out truth, out of love. It wouldn’t be CAF without Texan.

It seems like the LDS Church would be able to answer these questions. If the LDS Church wanted to answer this question, it should be very simple since the profits are alive today.

(I’ll be charitable here, and assume you meant “prophets”, and weren’t trying to be intentionally insulting by calling them “profits”)

I wasn’t aware that the existence of a living prophet meant that everything about everything got revealed. Can you point to your source in the Old Testament where this happened? You seem to be claiming that if we don’t have an answer for your deep cosmological questions about universes, that’s proof the prophet is false. I don’t think that really follows.

 

[TexanKnight]

Well, something to consider would be where you are asking the question. This is a Catholic board, set up by and peopled with folks who believe in the truth claims of the Catholic church, and therefore by default, disbelieve the truth claims of the LDS church.

That is not true for everyone. I do not disbelieve the LDS Church because I am Catholic. I left the LDS Church many years before becoming Catholic. I left because I uncovered the lies and God led me out of the falseness.

I’m not sure why you think it’s a good idea to come to such a place, to find out what the LDS church teaches. Should I go to an athiest or protestant message board to ask questions about what Catholics teach and believe?

Do you go to a Ford salesman to find out the truth about Fords? No. People come here because there are those of us who will actually tell the truth about the LDS Church and expose the false teachings…past and present

Folks like TexanKnight are now free to accuse my church of running away from and denying the truth,

Yes…I am free to tell the truth. And yes, your Church DOES run away from its past. Hinkley claimed the Church never taught that God was once man, when it is clear it had. McKay apparently claimed there was no ban against blacks, when everyone knows there was. Your church refuses to excavate Cumorah…and the list goes on and on

and create his usual strawmen about the poor mormon, feeling attacked by people who are only pointing out truth, out of love.

lol…so, speaking truth is now “strawman”? I would say the same thing if I was you.

It wouldn’t be CAF without Texan.

Sure it would. I am not very valuable.

(

 

[in_servitude]

Well, if it’s ok with you, I’m content with the contention being one sided only. I’m not here to contend with you, although you seem to consider yourself well-justified in contending with me. I don’t know - maybe the word contend is too contentious? How about we just keep it a civil argument?

What are we arguing about? You asked the question, “Why do you feel like my question is really just an attack and not an honest question?” The reality is that I don’t know why you feel like it is an attack, but I am aware that the contention is built in.

There are several ex-LDS people here on this forum that will stand up for the LDS teaching where it is justified. They express the truth, as near as I can tell.

I’m here because I’m Catholic, and I’d like to know the answer to my question. Honestly, I figured my question couldn’t possibly be unique and there was an often repeated answer.

My kids and my Catholic neighbor’s kids still play with each other, despite this situation. Just because we believe differently than each other, doesn’t mean I need to fight with them about it.

You have no idea about me or how I interact with LDS coworkers. It is a 50/50 split where I work (LDS and non-LDS), and there is no discussion about faith and differences between Catholics and LDS teaching.

Well, something to consider would be where you are asking the question. This is a Catholic board, set up by and peopled with folks who believe in the truth claims of the Catholic church, and therefore by default, disbelieve the truth claims of the LDS church. I’m not sure why you think it’s a good idea to come to such a place, to find out what the LDS church teaches. Should I go to an athiest or protestant message board to ask questions about what Catholics teach and believe?

Now, who is on the attack here? I’m asking a question, and I presume there are people here that have an answer. It seems I’m wrong about that.

When folks ask such questions, it’s usually done for one of two reasons. Either they really want to know the answer (in which case you should go somewhere peopled with active believing LDS), or they’re looking for an opportunity to argue for their viewpoint (which, given your words above, is what I’m guessing you want). Don’t get me wrong, I do plenty of the second one. I just did it one paragraph above.

I desire to know the answer. I’ll try it your way. Please provide a link where I can post this question and get an answer.

My only response, as one of the very few active LDS on this board, is “I haven’t given it much thought”. It’s the truth. I honestly don’t really care one way or the other how such things work. My personal discipleship and desire to come unto Christ and be saved, doesn’t extend to demanding to know everything about Deity, or deep cosmological questions about origins of the universe or universes. I’ve got bigger things to worry about, like how to make a successful marriage and raise righteous children who will seek to follow God.

So, how does attacking my question help you do any of those things?

Folks like TexanKnight are now free to accuse my church of running away from and denying the truth, and create his usual strawmen about the poor mormon, feeling attacked by people who are only pointing out truth, out of love. It wouldn’t be CAF without Texan.

TexanKnight might be blunt, but I doubt he is guilty of what you accuse. To me, he sounds like someone that expects accountability from people that push a version of the truth that run in opposition to other facts.

(I’ll be charitable here, and assume you meant “prophets”, and weren’t trying to be intentionally insulting by calling them “profits”)

I appreciate your calling this error of mine to my attention. I think I routinely make this mistake - so thanks for correcting me on this.

I wasn’t aware that the existence of a living prophet meant that everything about everything got revealed. Can you point to your source in the Old Testament where this happened? You seem to be claiming that if we don’t have an answer for your deep cosmological questions about universes, that’s proof the prophet is false. I don’t think that really follows.

I did not mean to infer that “everything about everything got revealed”. I said that IF the LDS Church wanted to do so, it could answer questions like this due to the direct connection to God through modern day Prophets. The Catholic Church actually does this - when a problem comes up and the issue needs to be addressed, they go through the work to address the problem. Council documents are the result, and those documents are revealed by God.

 

[twopekinguys]

What in the world is Infinite regression?

Glenda

It means that god had a father, and that god had a father, and that god had a father. etc.

 

[rossum]

An “infinite regression” cannot be possible in a finite universe.

Yes it can. See Zeno’s arrow: 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 … = 2 and 2 is finite.

If there are only 10 to the 83rd power or so subatomic particles in the universe, then this will limit the regression to 10 to the 23rd or so power due to star limitations.

And how many different universes has omnipotent God created? You are making an assumption here.

Therefore, the only way that the infinite regression can work is if there are an infinite number of universes.

Not “only way”, but “one possible way”.

Multiverse theory proposes an infinite number of universes.

rossum

 

[in_servitude]

Yes it can. See Zeno’s arrow: 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 … = 2 and 2 is finite.

That implies infinitely small “gods.” As I understand it, they all take the form of non-infinitely small humans. So, this does not “fly”.

And how many different universes has omnipotent God created? You are making an assumption here.

In the past, my questions of the LDS people about that God that did the creating is dismissed DUE TO the infinite regression. When the LDS folks that I’ve spoken with in the past make the point that I could be a god if I joined the LDS Church and “followed the plan,” I asked about THE God that created everything. The response was: regardless of how the initial creating occurred, it is infinitely far away due to the infinite regression, and therefore is not something to consider. I do not believe that my LDS friends/coworkers believe that they will have the capability to create a universe of their own (or, even life for that matter). So, all of that creating has already been done by some other entity.

That’s my experience - and if this runs in opposition to honest LDS doctrine, then I’d like to be corrected on this matter.

Not “only way”, but “one possible way”.

Again, this universe that we live in is finite. Infinite regression cannot be contained within the finite.

Multiverse theory proposes an infinite number of universes.

rossum

I’ve heard that being discussed.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic, not each other

 

[rossum]

That implies infinitely small “gods.” As I understand it, they all take the form of non-infinitely small humans. So, this does not “fly”.

If a god lacks the power to make itself infinitely small, then that god is not omnipotent, since it is lacking the power of infinite self-reduction. A truly omnipotent God will possess the power of infinite self-reduction and so can be as small as that God wishes.

rossum

 

[SteveVH]

If a god lacks the power to make itself infinitely small, then that god is not omnipotent, since it is lacking the power of infinite self-reduction. A truly omnipotent God will possess the power of infinite self-reduction and so can be as small as that God wishes.

rossum

One might also say that an omnipotent God should be capable of sinning, otherwise he is somehow limited and therefore not omnipotent because there is something he is not capable of doing. But for God to sin would be a denial of himself who is without sin. Likewise, God cannot become smaller than he is by nature as it would also be a denial of himself who is eternally above all things.

The LDS position of infinite regression contradicts reason. It assumes that there cannot be one God who is above all, rather a chain of gods whose only difference is their level of progression. Add to this the belief that all gods started as human beings and then progressed to godhood. From where did the first human who became a god originate if he was not first created (or in LDS terminology “formed”) by a God who was God from eternity? The entire notion was not very well thought out before it became LDS doctrine. It is simply nonsensical.

 

[NeuroTypical]

What are we arguing about? You asked the question, “Why do you feel like my question is really just an attack and not an honest question?”

I’m not sure what this means. You’ve placed things in quotes that I’ve not said. I can’t find them anywhere on this thread.

I desire to know the answer. I’ll try it your way. Please provide a link where I can post this question and get an answer.

You’d probably have good luck at the Mormondialogue forum - lots of well-sourced folks there.

mormondialogue.org/forum/11-general-discussions/

NeuroTypical:

I’m not sure why you think it’s a good idea to come to such a place, to find out what the LDS church teaches. Should I go to an atheist or protestant message board to ask questions about what Catholics teach and believe?

Do you go to a Ford salesman to find out the truth about Fords? No. People come here because there are those of us who will actually tell the truth about the LDS Church and expose the false teachings…past and present

I note that Texan is arguing in favor of me going to an atheist or protestant forum to learn about Catholics, instead of coming here. Either that, or he’s claiming that mormons are generally liars or deceivers. Which is it, Texan?

 

[iepuras]

The LDS position of infinite regression contradicts reason. It assumes that there cannot be one God who is above all, rather a chain of gods whose only difference is their level of progression. Add to this the belief that all gods started as human beings and then progressed to godhood. From where did the first human who became a god originate if he was not first created (or in LDS terminology “formed”) by a God who was God from eternity? The entire notion was not very well thought out before it became LDS doctrine. It is simply nonsensical.

When I was a teenager, I asked about this in Sunday School. The idea of generations of gods and god having a father who had a father, etc just never made sense to me. I asked if there were generations of gods, how did the first god become a god. I got a completely nonsensical answer which included that there is no “first god”. It just never made sense that there could be an infinite regression of gods if these gods were finite (have physical bodies living on a planet) in a finite universe. I asked this question in Sunday School because I genuinely wanted to know and certainly was not trying to score points against the church or my teacher. Some people actually think about things and seek answers to the “tough questions”.

 

[SteveVH]

When I was a teenager, I asked about this in Sunday School. The idea of generations of gods and god having a father who had a father, etc just never made sense to me. I asked if there were generations of gods, how did the first god become a god. I got a completely nonsensical answer which included that there is no “first god”. It just never made sense that there could be an infinite regression of gods if these gods were finite (have physical bodies living on a planet) in a finite universe. I asked this question in Sunday School because I genuinely wanted to know and certainly was not trying to score points against the church or my teacher. Some people actually think about things and seek answers to the “tough questions”.

Bless you for seeking truth.

 

[in_servitude]

When I was a teenager, I asked about this in Sunday School. The idea of generations of gods and god having a father who had a father, etc just never made sense to me. I asked if there were generations of gods, how did the first god become a god. I got a completely nonsensical answer which included that there is no “first god”. It just never made sense that there could be an infinite regression of gods if these gods were finite (have physical bodies living on a planet) in a finite universe. I asked this question in Sunday School because I genuinely wanted to know and certainly was not trying to score points against the church or my teacher. Some people actually think about things and seek answers to the “tough questions”.

This (no “first god”) is similar to how I what I was saying earlier. The question of universe creation is dismissed, in my experience. It seems necessary to do that if I’m going to be a god, because I am aware that I could never put a universe together on my own.

 

[TexanKnight]

it would seem that, if every God had a father ad infinitum, then there is no way God created the Universe…The Universe created God…