Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[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

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.

Thanks, Limnor. I appreciate your and Gad's attempts to bring me up to speed. But as I said to Gad, I think it best if I let this one go.

A couple of points, though, on your response to me:

• I completely fail to see the point in introducing "love" as a godly attribute - for me, it doesn't seem to be in the same category as omnipotence and omniscience
• I have similar severe doubts about the usefulness of using "goodness" as a criterion, mostly because of the "god's ways are not man's ways" argument
• due to the recent relaxation of church standards on temple garments, we may now be able to tell if angels have shoulders. I'm going to look for that formerly "porn" part of the anatomy in any images of angels I come across. Elbows may be easier to discern. Of course, if angels have elbows, Canadian angels will no doubt have theirs "up", which may further reduce the available space for a stable configuration

[Limnor]

A couple of points, though, on your response to me:

• I completely fail to see the point in introducing "love" as a godly attribute - for me, it doesn't seem to be in the same category as omnipotence and omniscience
• I have similar severe doubts about the usefulness of using "goodness" as a criterion, mostly because of the "god's ways are not man's ways" argument
• due to the recent relaxation of church standards on temple garments, we may now be able to tell if angels have shoulders. I'm going to look for that formerly "porn" part of the anatomy in any images of angels I come across. Elbows may be easier to discern. Of course, if angels have elbows, Canadian angels will no doubt have theirs "up", which may further reduce the available space for a stable configuration

I introduced “love” because my a posteriori argument includes biblical revelation and in that revelation God is specifically referred to as love. I interpret love as being God’s essence.

A couple more terms we’ve used. A priori means argued from reason alone—don’t look at the world, experience, or evidence. It’s all conceptual—but there are constraints. The concepts have to be logical; you can’t say a triangle has four sides for example. A posteriori can be argued from experience or observation. You can look at the world and draw conclusions.

Canadian angels would be more likely to apologize for taking up too much space, potentially allowing for squeeze to allow more.

[Gadianton]

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.

I again apologize for the thread title. It came into being with creative license, while under the influence of the main kind of spirit Joseph Smith associated with. I do NOT believe that God is a logical necessity. I do NOT believe Mormons have an argument for God's logical necessity. On the one hand, I implied that I reject Anselm's conclusion in the first paragraph, and then never brought up necessity from that point on. One the other, I didn't explicitly say I reject God's necessity, I assigned a title that explicitly says Mormonism has an argument for God's necessity, and I failed to appreciate just how strongly the belief of maximal everything urges the suggestion of instantiation. And so here we are -- totally my fault. Limnor's interest is appropriate given anybody trying to get to rock bottom, whether by theology or other means, will face similar challenges of separating what we know by experience from what we can know, if anything, without reference to experience. I will say this: while it seems ridiculous that something can be argued into existence, and nearly everyone encountering the argument feels the same way, pinpointing exactly what is wrong with the argument besides just, "oh come on!" is the challenge. It's similar in my mind to other kinds of paradoxes.

I completely fail to see the point in introducing "love" as a godly attribute - for me, it doesn't seem to be in the same category as omnipotence and omniscience

That's interesting, as I see it totally opposite. I think "love" would be God's defining attribute. "God" can mean just about anything, but the most universal definition that I can see is that we are God's creations, and that God is the greatest being imaginable, whatever greatest exactly means.

I reject that the greatest being imaginable is omniscient because omniscience or anything even close is logically incompatible with free will. Though free will is also illogical, I reject that God would determine the world because determinism makes life pointless, and for my fellow unbelievers like Sean Carroll who disagree, who call themselves compatibilists, I point them to Jonathan Edwards, who invented compatibilism in order for God to damn his creations to hell without feeling bad. I'm a "hold" on omnipotence, and just maintain a God would need to be the most powerful being, not "all powerful". However, I would imagine God would have a great deal of love.

I can't imagine anything more pointless than creating a world of life with the ability to suffer immeasurably without loving the creatures. The Book of Mormon says we should thank God for the very air we breath. This is a shockingly weird idea to me. If I had the power to create a fish, and I know just how badly that fish will suffer if it can't breath, I would check the tank a hundred times before creating it to make sure it was going to be okay. The last thing I'd do is raise an eyebrow and wonder if the fish will still love me if I cut off its bubbles. I cannot imagine creating anything with feelings and self-determination (assuming I'm wrong about possibility of will) for any reason other than the pleasure of the creation's pleasure. I do not state God's love axiomatically, but infer that such would be a God's only rational motivation for creating.

You know that saying, "if you love someone set them free, if they return it was meant to be"? A God's driving concern would be the pleasure of the creations he forced into existence and do everything in his power to keep them safe, and if they love him back or even acknowledge him, it's either optional, or actually meaningful for God, where such meaningfulness isn't possible if assured or demanded.

[Physics Guy]

I think I may have a one-line proof of compatibilism: "Whatever it is that controls you, is you."

[malkie]

Thanks, Limnor & Gad, for your patience with me. You are both fine gentlemen.

Not every topic is "for" everyone, and I believe this one is just not for me.

[Limnor]

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.

While I understand you aren’t particularly interested in continuing in this discussion, I wanted to let you know this is a stronger contribution to the discussion than you might realize (or maybe you do, I don’t know). I’m less interested in proving that God must exist through logic and more interested in whether some descriptions of God are stronger than others—and all that to test my own belief system. Like gad, I agree that love is central to God, so the question becomes “does love logically require multiple persons to fully express itself or can a solitary being possess love without relation?”

[MG 2.0]

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.

While I understand you aren’t particularly interested in continuing in this discussion, I wanted to let you know this is a stronger contribution to the discussion than you might realize (or maybe you do, I don’t know). I’m less interested in proving that God must exist through logic and more interested in whether some descriptions of God are stronger than others—and all that to test my own belief system. Like gad, I agree that love is central to God, so the question becomes “does love logically require multiple persons to fully express itself or can a solitary being possess love without relation?”

In LDS theology the answer is a definitive no. We may differ from our fellow Christian brothers and sisters on this count. God has always existed in relationship (premortal existence). That being the case, God has always possessed love. Ya' can't have it unless you have someone to share it with.

It's fun to read this thread. What is evident is that God is above anyone's pay grade to try and explain. Even with all of Gadianton's philosophizing he still comes down to the the basic Christian pronouncement, "God is Love".

That may be all we have to know. Gadianton expressed a few reasons why. I've been sick this week and have had a hard time breathing at night. I am extremely grateful for the gift of breathing. That requires a lot of moving parts. Before now, and in the present. That is, in my estimation, one facet of God's love that is given to everyone that has been blessed with the simple ability to breathe.

The Book of Mormon shrink wraps this whole OA:

Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.
Mosiah 4:9

Philosophical argument can only get you so far. Even with Blake Ostler...and Gadianton.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

To be fair, gad was exploring things like what counts as maximal greatness? What kind of god would have to exist, if there were one? And we explored a question about love being intrinsic to God or dependent on external creation or “other?” The concept of a trinity answers the last question by allowing God to be self-sufficient, independent of creation.

For me—and probably for Mormons—the Mormon god is far too different from historic Christianity to say they are minor variations of the same thing, and use of the phrase “Christian brothers and sisters” within the theology has too many added connotations for me to use that language comfortably.

For example, if intelligences are uncreated and co-eternal, and God exists among those other eternal beings, then the regress question would need to be accounted for. One of gad’s earlier comments included questions about the basis for that explanation if god is an extension of extending hierarchy into eternity past. Historical Christian thought terminates that regress in necessary being, but I saw no explanation from Mormon thought.

[huckelberry]

I think I may have a one-line proof of compatibilism: "Whatever it is that controls you, is you."

I agree, in fact it seems bizarre to attempt not to agree.

[MG 2.0]

To be fair, gad was exploring things like what counts as maximal greatness? What kind of god would have to exist, if there were one? And we explored a question about love being intrinsic to God or dependent on external creation or “other?” The concept of a trinity answers the last question by allowing God to be self-sufficient, independent of creation.

For me—and probably for Mormons—the Mormon god is far too different from historic Christianity to say they are minor variations of the same thing, and use of the phrase “Christian brothers and sisters” within the theology has too many added connotations for me to use that language comfortably.

For example, if intelligences are uncreated and co-eternal, and God exists among those other eternal beings, then the regress question would need to be accounted for. One of gad’s earlier comments included questions about the basis for that explanation if god is an extension of extending hierarchy into eternity past. Historical Christian thought terminates that regress in necessary being, but I saw no explanation from Mormon thought.

Doctrine and Covenants 93 teaches that “Intelligence was not created or made, neither indeed can be”.

Abraham 3 says, "there were many of the noble and great ones” and that God was “more intelligent than they all.”

Our theology rejects ex nihilo creation. God(s) have always "organized" what already existed as eternal realities (intelligences, matter, and law). God's supremacy doesn't depend on being the "first cause" of all existence, but on perfect mastery of eternal realities. This is where LDS doctrine veers off from traditional Christian theology/doctrine.

We...all of us...share 'eternity' with God. There was a hierarchy of 'intelligences' (very little is known about this). Other can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there is anything in LDS scripture the requires that God became God through a prior God. Again, we are co-eternal with God. God's supremacy was within the co-eternality of intelligences, not from a prior deity.

Of course we have the doctrine which teaches that "As man is, God once was" to muddle our way through.

Modern LDS philosophic thought (again, corrrect me if I'm wrong) would say that intelligences are eternal, God's divine status is eternal...even though His embodied status had a temporal history. God has always been God in the sense of being the supreme intelligence.

At the bottom of all of this, and this is where we DO take a huge divergence from other Christians, is that LDS eternal progression implies no absolute beginning.

Mind boggling.

Infinite regress of 'divine beings' is metaphysically possible and not contradictory. The thing is, throughout LDS restoration history there have been what appear to be differences between canonical scripture, official teachings, and consistent prophetical statements. I think those things are still being worked out between and among scholars, prophets, and theologians/philosophers.

Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. An ongoing restoration. This ongoing restoration provides for additional light and knowledge that, in my opinion, might be absent from the canon of tradition Christian teachings concerning the OA's being discussed in this thread. Mormonism opens up a few more doors for explanation/exploration...with the caveat that not ALL the answers are readily within our view.

That's where Gadianton, and yourself, come into view.

Regards,
Mg