Second, the idea that “In order to be God, one mustn’t be unwillingly affected, ever; nor
have been” makes no sense to me. Why?
Yes, I should have specified. I’m very glad you pointed this out. I think this is where we find the “fork in the road.”
Whew boy… this is where it gets complicated, but I’ll sure try my best. Okay, to begin:
My God is not subject to cause & affect (if my God were, then my God would cease to be God: effect would then be “God”)… Instead of using the word God, I’ll use: FC (First Cause); which means, “Affector” as appose to affected.
My friend, here we find, between our philosophies, the differing God: your God is chaos (i.e. affected by not-entirely knowable variables; thus chaos), and my God is FC (i.e. my God creates all variables; thus is “First Cause”).
You don’t believe in FC. You believe that the line of creation has no FC behind it. You believe no FC caused or created this line of cause & affect. You think (most don’t realize this) something was created by nothing (e.g. '"the ‘infinite’ finites of cause and affect aren’t subject to a Higher Creator;" and that is why you Mormons must learn so much: truth be told, you’d never stop learning, because your God is not a living being; it’s chaos. Apparently you missed when I said a finite cannot cross an infinite… sorry).
Forwithout my lovely FC, there is no (“first”) cause for this line of cause & affect, other than random chance. Your entire “Universe,” dimension(s), “SPACE” is only sequences of natural cause and affect. With your philosophy, there is no being outside of cause and affect, because this being of yours is subject to affect (i.e. involuntary change). The only higher being of yours, again: is chaos.
Is he saying God cannot grow,
cannot learn? To say such is saying that God is damned, His
Damned is sorrow and misery; not lack of learning.
I’ll say as Einstein said: time exists only because it is relative; time is nothing more than measure “between” existence.
Thus, so is this “thing” you speak of, which you call “growth:” growth is merely a change between two or more points. Progression = cause and affect (the distance between less and more, is changing–i.e. being affected). If God can be affected involuntarily, then who/what exactly is God? Again I tell you, CHAOS is your God.
Suppose all were known. Well, so? So that’s the end of progression. Right? (No: that’s the end of learning)
Now in order for a being to have created reality, (the First Cause of reality–unless Godless “reality” supersedes God, in which case = chaos), this being must know all which is created/caused by this own being. Thus: the true God needn’t learn anything new about God’s own creation. Whatever God learns, God didn’t create. So in your case, if God is learning, who is really “God” here? Chaos, I tell you.
Now granted, we have living beings FC has created, who can act as they choose, which could allow for a change in FC’s “awareness.” However, FC is still learning nothing new which FC didn’t already know–after all, FC created all the options of which FC’s creation chose/choose between.
Don’t worry though: God (FC) is still entirely infinite, or else God (FC) couldn’t have created to begin with. (That is, God can always choose to “know” more. In no way however is this to be confused with “learning” (for FC): learning is involuntary (the material to learn supersedes the learner).
While God’s infinite ability to know more is indeed a change of God (FC), this goes back to what I said in my first post: this is a voluntary change*. God can change, but only voluntarily. This is not the same thing as learning. Learning is reserved for one who is not the Creator of the Universe. *