Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[Limnor]

in total, you've created a masterpiece of careful circular reasoning, which actually takes talent to do and so don't take that as an insult.

LOL fair enough! I’ll digest this and return

[Limnor]

I think it might help if I break what I’m trying to say into two parts: an a priori consideration and an a posteriori one.

By a priori, I mean what does maximal greatness look like with no preconceptions? I’m not assuming there “has” to be a God. So absent definitions of a maximally great being, I have to admit that I’m assigning my own values, including moral perfection and intrinsic relational love, and no dependence on creation to apply that love. So I could create my god to fit my own requirements, whether we use “love” or “body” as stipulations.

By a posteriori, I mean what has been revealed or experienced in Christian theology, and I think the prior discussion—though circular—works to explain concepts like the trinity.

I don’t mind saying I am a bit confused—am I tracking the discussion parameters accurately?

[Gadianton]

By a priori, I mean what does maximal greatness look like with no preconceptions?

correct. An abstraction. Without reference to real experience. Goedel's version is God = "all positive properties". Basically, imagine trying to explain what love is by proofs in geometry, or worse, love has to exist by geometry proofs.

I’m not assuming there “has” to be a God. So absent definitions of a maximally great being, I have to admit that I’m assigning my own values, including moral perfection and intrinsic relational love, and no dependence on creation to apply that love. So I could create my god to fit my own requirements, whether we use “love” or “body” as stipulations.

not following 100%, but those proposing OAs are acutely aware that they are proposing a bare minimal framework, and I assume they try to evade connecting their actual beliefs to the formal framework because of the host of problems that arise, like the love of the trinity sustaining the empty set. If I'm a Christian apologist with an OA, I'm living a compartmentalized life where I don't talk about the OA in church (unless to brag about besting unbelievers), and I don't talk about church when I'm proving God.

By a posteriori, I mean what has been revealed or experienced in Christian theology, and I think the prior discussion—though circular—works to explain concepts like the trinity.

you know what love is by a combination of experience and everyday language about that experience, including the revealed word. Then you get highly theoretical about what love might be, and use something like Platonism to suggest that aha -- we only really know love because love must exist in the ideal world of forms. If our world is shadows performing on the wall of a cave, then the light source must be a greatly deeper reality that makes our watered-down experience of it possible. If love requires a lover and a loved, and the love, then the light source must require all three in a more perfect way.

Now how would you prove that? Could we have not invented a Platonic definition of love that required 2 beings or 4 beings if the Bible said 2 or 4 instead of three? well, philosophy is philosophy because it doesn't have deductive power of math, and it doesn't have the experiments of science. Figuring out ways to argue for the point get creative.

[Limnor]

I may not be explaining myself very well. I’m not a philosopher or theologian, and I’m learning these terms as I go. This isn’t a competition for me, and I respect how much thought you’ve put into this. I also don’t want to deviate from your original idea.

I’m not trying to use the OA to prove the Trinity (at least not on purpose) in fact I’m still trying to figure out what that really means and how that is even an argument. I’m really not trying to fake you out and sneak anything in.

What I’m seeing is that when we talk about “maximal greatness,” there seems to be some unwritten and even unstated input to define terms. Like Godel’s “positive properties” seems to have a pre-approved understanding of what positive means. I’m aware that I’m bringing moral perfection and intrinsic relational love as what I think “positive properties” are, but would say that what I’m doing is exploring whether, or how, to describe “what works best” in a comparison between a solitary or trinitarian type god.

It’s funny I was thinking that there might be room to argue for a social trinitarian god like the AI post from MG mentions. But you’d have to account from growth in the love we’ve been talking about as part of progression and not from eternity past. I’m still pondering that bit.

[malkie]

This is one of these topics in which I'm completely out of my depth.

But here's what I keep asking myself: have we effectively returned to the old arguments about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I mean no disrespect to the participants in the thread, but wonder if anyone can help me understand, in simple terms. And, no - tempting though it may be, please don't just give me a number

[Gadianton]

I may not be explaining myself very well. I’m not a philosopher or theologian, and I’m learning these terms as I go. This isn’t a competition for me, and I respect how much thought you’ve put into this. I also don’t want to deviate from your original idea.

the deviation isn't a problem, I'm not a thread Nazi, and the feedback from you and the others have been immensely helpful. A 2.0 version with even more words is already in the works to trim some parts and add other parts that I think are important. The title of this one is a misnomer, well, it is an OA in the limited sense, like deliberating over how to classify plants and animals, but not in the sense of making existence necessary, which has become a huge point of confusion and totally avoidable, entirely my fault. Not that this deviation hasn't had its own benefits. And when I post the next one, I won't complete it and post stone drunk. Though, perhaps that I did is symbolic of the liquor orgy at the Kirtland temple. I still stand behind it but see some problems.

I’m not trying to use the OA to prove the Trinity (at least not on purpose) in fact I’m still trying to figure out what that really means and how that is even an argument. I’m really not trying to fake you out and sneak anything in.

well yes I completely get that. I wouldn't even care if you were.

What I’m seeing is that when we talk about “maximal greatness,” there seems to be some unwritten and even unstated input to define terms. Like Godel’s “positive properties” seems to have a pre-approved understanding of what positive means. I’m aware that I’m bringing moral perfection and intrinsic relational love as what I think “positive properties” are, but would say that what I’m doing is exploring whether, or how, to describe “what works best” in a comparison between a solitary or trinitarian type god.

Goedel's version may be the cleanest given who he was, but it also gets extensive criticism. Though it's not like he'd published it or anything. parodies of "negative properties" have been done. You just can't get much out of the argument but a blank container for -- something? And so it's extraneous to the task of comparing candidate entities for God. There is no way of conceiving of God that is going to get defined into existence faster than any other.

It’s funny I was thinking that there might be room to argue for a social trinitarian god like the AI post from MG mentions. But you’d have to account from growth in the love we’ve been talking about as part of progression and not from eternity past. I’m still pondering that bit.

He should be happy he got his mention in this thread.

[Limnor]

This is one of these topics in which I'm completely out of my depth.

But here's what I keep asking myself: have we effectively returned to the old arguments about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I mean no disrespect to the participants in the thread, but wonder if anyone can help me understand, in simple terms. And, no - tempting though it may be, please don't just give me a number

I think the discussion really focuses on two things. First, can you use logic to argue that the greatest possible being—God—“must” exist? And second, if love is part of greatness (I introduced that part, and gad has reasonably challenged it), would a solitary God or to a relational understanding like the Trinity better satisfy that requirement?

I had to look up most of the terms we are using. Like maximal greatness and ontological argument. This is how I’m understanding it. Imagine you’re describing the greatest possible superhero. He’s all-powerful, knows everything, and perfectly good. Now imagine someone says “that’s cool, but he doesn’t actually exist.” Would that really be the greatest possible superhero? If he actually exists, that seems “greater” than one who only exists in your imagination. That’s the ontological argument.

If you can do all that, what kind of God does best fit that maximal greatness? I’d argue that “greatness” includes perfect love, and I’ve used Augustine’s idea to submit that a Trinitarian model works, because if God were a solitary being, who would he be loving before creation exists?

The angel answer depends on whether angels have elbows.

[Gadianton]

This is one of these topics in which I'm completely out of my depth.

I doubt it. Just a matter of personal topic interest.

But here's what I keep asking myself: have we effectively returned to the old arguments about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

That's another caricature -- no philosophers have ever debated this.

I mean no disrespect to the participants in the thread, but wonder if anyone can help me understand, in simple terms.

Understand what in simple terms? If you mean the OP, I can probably shrink it down to a few lines, given your math background is better than mine.

If you mean another part of the thread, you'd have to explain which part to explain, and depending what it is maybe yes maybe no.

[Limnor]

He should be happy he got his mention in this thread.

[malkie]

This is one of these topics in which I'm completely out of my depth.

I doubt it. Just a matter of personal topic interest.

But here's what I keep asking myself: have we effectively returned to the old arguments about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

That's another caricature -- no philosophers have ever debated this.

It's not that I really care if philosophers have ever debated the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I think I'm just frustrated at quantity of minute detail that my brain is failing to keep track of. I feel as if, at least to my understanding, adding layers of complexity and progressively finer gradations of definitions is not getting me closer to anything I can grasp.

I mean no disrespect to the participants in the thread, but wonder if anyone can help me understand, in simple terms.

Understand what in simple terms? If you mean the OP, I can probably shrink it down to a few lines, given your math background is better than mine.

You're right - I was extremely vague. My lack of understanding started with the OP, but has not improved in any way as the thread continued. I know that the OA is serious philosophy, but I cannot get my head around the idea that you can argue or imagine something into existence - especially a god. I know that's an oversimplification of, for example, Anselm's position, but there it is, at least for me.

by the way, I used to be able to call myself a mathematician, but that was 4-5 decades ago

If you mean another part of the thread, you'd have to explain which part to explain, and depending what it is maybe yes maybe no.

Thanks for the offer, but I think I'm going to just let it go. Sorry for the derail.