Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tooblue
Yes, but such a discussion does not preclude the existence of God, or rather the importance of God … I am responding to Robin’s assertion that there is no need for God.
The only silly thing about a chicken and egg discussion is an unwillingness to submit to the idea that there is no beginning or end, ergo; it is folly to try and determine which came first.
What would be the point of universal law if there were no one to govern it and or be subjected to it? It exists because God and his creations exist, and God and his creations exist because the law exists … again, it is folly to try and determine which came first –one cannot exist without the other!
|
And yet, the scriptures and teachings of the prophets clearly teach that God is subordinate to laws. Twice in the Book of Mormon, for example, it is taught that God must adhere to certain laws or "he would cease to be God." The lectures on faith are a useful discourse on the characteristics God must adhere to in order for other beings to have faith in Him. If we believe, as Joseph Smith taught, that God was once a man like us and became what He now is, then there is no chicken and egg problem-- Law came first, then came God. (The Prophet has clearly engaged in folly here, as he determined which came first.)
Besides, we do teach that there is no beginning or end, if that "hie to kolob" song means anything to us. But that's another matter altogether.
I'm with you in disagreeing with Robin regarding the "necessity" of God, but the argument you're using isn't leak proof either.