A Thought Experiment: Is Mormonism Ultimately Non-Theistic?

[_mfbukowski]

"Satan, in opposing natural law, cannot prosper. It is like rowing against the tide. Perhaps through his pride, he thought he could triumph, but is mistaken."

mfbukowski, I am a bit taken aback. Why would one think of Satan as opposing natural laws. They are the basis of his existence the same as mine. I cannot imagine he would wish to avoid his own self. I can imagine he could have different political ideas. He may have ones that repell me but is that the same as opposing natural law?

I am familiar with ideas that see demands of justice or perhaps love to be part of natural law but that would fit with natural laws proceeding from an eternal creator . Does it work to have natural law of love without an eternal lover determining that condition?

So you believe it is evil then to follow natural law? I don't understand your point.

This is mine, very briefly

correspondence with natural law= good
defiance of natural law= bad

[_honorentheos]

Last I checked, the natural man was an enemy to God. My how times change.

MFB may want to clarify the bounds of natural law here.

But in doing so remember, Orson Pratt was soundly ridiculed by BY, to the point he almost was expelled from the Quorum of the Twelve, for believeing that the attributes of God were what made Him divine, rather than God Himself being the object that was worthy of worship.

Personally, I think Orson Pratt won out in how modern Mormonism views God, but it wouldn't be the first time Brigham was wrong about something as important as the nature of God.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Hey asbestosman,

There are a number of arguments against an infinite past, and a number of counter arguments. I'm still undecided at the moment, but, I think even the proposed solutions don't fix issues for LDS cosmology, since they are more customed tailored for Naturalism. Just to give you a taste, I'll reproduce a popular argument from William Lane Craig, since an evangelical is most likely going to use him

"Suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting down from infinity and who is now finishing: . . ., -3, -2, -1, 0. We could ask, why didn’t he finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should already have finished. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will already have finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This shows again that the formation of an actual infinite by never beginning but reaching an end is as impossible as beginning at a point and trying to reach infinity."

If you don't follow this, I can put it into a deductive argument, which might make it easier to parse.

[_huckelberry]

mfbukowski replied,"So you believe it is evil then to follow natural law? I don't understand your point.

This is mine, very briefly

correspondence with natural law= good
defiance of natural law= bad"

I am completely taken aback. I cannot imagine something further from my thoughts than the idea that it is evil to follow natural law.

My point is all existing beings are unable to avoid natural law. following it is done by good and bad alike. We do not see sociopaths floating skyward having become so evil as to disturb the law of gravity.

I am questioning to see how we might understand Gods authority in the LDS view. I may be wrong but I keep suspecting that there is no foundation for him to have authority over who is exalted and who is not ,who has power and who has not. After all god did not originate laws they are there available for one and all to use.

Your view about natural law sounds rather Augustinian. Myself, believing pretty orthodox trinitarian views hold that view of natural law. But because there all law flows ultimaty from Gods love it make more sense in that context, I think, to speak of evil ultimately countering natural law. I like Augustines formulation that evil confuses and corrupts the good of natural law. I think the other traditional way of saying it has value as well, evil chooses lesser goods to stand in the place of greater goods.

[_mfbukowski]

mfbukowski replied,"So you believe it is evil then to follow natural law? I don't understand your point.

This is mine, very briefly

correspondence with natural law= good
defiance of natural law= bad"

I am completely taken aback. I cannot imagine something further from my thoughts than the idea that it is evil to follow natural law.

My point is all existing beings are unable to avoid natural law. following it is done by good and bad alike. We do not see sociopaths floating skyward having become so evil as to disturb the law of gravity.

I am questioning to see how we might understand Gods authority in the LDS view. I may be wrong but I keep suspecting that there is no foundation for him to have authority over who is exalted and who is not ,who has power and who has not. After all god did not originate laws they are there available for one and all to use.

Your view about natural law sounds rather Augustinian. Myself, believing pretty orthodox trinitarian views hold that view of natural law. But because there all law flows ultimaty from Gods love it make more sense in that context, I think, to speak of evil ultimately countering natural law. I like Augustines formulation that evil confuses and corrupts the good of natural law. I think the other traditional way of saying it has value as well, evil chooses lesser goods to stand in the place of greater goods.

It seems that we are not understanding each other.

I said that Satan violated natural law and so was evil, and you were taken aback.
I sarcastically then asked you if you thought it was good to break natural law, and again you are taken aback.

No matter what I post, I suspect you will be taken aback.

God follows natural law. If he did not, he would not be God. It is good to follow natural law. Satan violated natural law by violating the principle of agency.

Because of the "fall" what we call the "natural man" is an enemy to God. It is perhaps better to use the term "God's law" when we are referring to human conduct, because God's law IS the natural law of the universe because it always works. I really don't like the term "natural law"

It was the fall itself which defined animal behavior as "bad" and set up the challenge to become more "human" and godlike. The entry of the promised messiah into the equation is what challenges us to follow him and become more human- like his father and less like our animal selves

[_asbestosman]

I'm still undecided at the moment, but, I think even the proposed solutions don't fix issues for LDS cosmology, since they are more customed tailored for Naturalism.

They probably are meant for Naturalism. I wonder, though, if such solutions are truly incompatible with LDS cosmology.

Just to give you a taste, I'll reproduce a popular argument from William Lane Craig, since an evangelical is most likely going to use him

I think I've seen that before. In one sense he's right. You can't reach infinity by counting one at a time since there is no greatest integer and all integers are finite. It also doesn't make sense to count down from infinity one at a time since there is no biggest integer at which to begin.

I think he also makes a mistake here:

By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should already have finished.

Even putting aside the issue about no greatest integer, that's still not necessarily true. If I consider the cardinal aleph_0, then there are also proper subsets which have the same cardinality--infinitely many. It's one of those paradoxes of infinity. You can subdivide infinity into is many (countable) equal partitions as you like all which have aleph_0 elements.

Now granted, with counting it's proper to speak of the ordinals instead of the cardinals. However, we run into the initial problem immediately--there is no finite integer which is the immediate predecessor of omega (the smallest transfinite ordinal). So saying that God couldn't possibly count to infinity one at a time doesn't strike me as particularly interesting. It's impossible simply because there is no greatest integer. However, that doesn't mean it's impossible to reach infinity. Zeno's paradox is a nice example of reaching infinity in a finite amount of time. Now granted, we are speaking of time itself. However, maybe that can be resolved by speaking of time as it applies to different observers.

[_huckelberry]

Giving the dead horse another wack, I am sure it is good for something.

I keep thinking there are some interesting things in the questions in the above thread. I have failed utterly to engage LDS with my questions however Maybe my attempts to exaggurate the question hinders instead of helping. I find it understandable that LDS do not believe God lacks authority to either judge or defeat the aspirations of Satan. The reality of that power is held in faith by all sorts of Christians but is not objectively certain for anybody. The LDS structure of authority appears rickety or upside down to me but that is probably influenced by my preference for a more traditional view of the relationship between God and natural law. I understand that relationship to be natural law comes into being as a result of Gods nature and purposes and decisions.

It probably is not possible to establish that the LDS view is unworkable. At the same time I am puzzled that LDS speak repeated of the superiority of their cosmology. I find its strongest elements to be derived from the traditional, Augustine/ Aquinas, views while the distinctive elements appear to me to be not so strong. Maybe I am wondering If I could be sold on the LDS alternative?

[_mfbukowski]

Giving the dead horse another wack, I am sure it is good for something.

I keep thinking there are some interesting things in the questions in the above thread. I have failed utterly to engage LDS with my questions however Maybe my attempts to exaggurate the question hinders instead of helping. I find it understandable that LDS do not believe God lacks authority to either judge or defeat the aspirations of Satan. The reality of that power is held in faith by all sorts of Christians but is not objectively certain for anybody. The LDS structure of authority appears rickety or upside down to me but that is probably influenced by my preference for a more traditional view of the relationship between God and natural law. I understand that relationship to be natural law comes into being as a result of Gods nature and purposes and decisions.

It probably is not possible to establish that the LDS view is unworkable. At the same time I am puzzled that LDS speak repeated of the superiority of their cosmology. I find its strongest elements to be derived from the traditional, Augustine/ Aquinas, views while the distinctive elements appear to me to be not so strong. Maybe I am wondering If I could be sold on the LDS alternative?

I think clearly there are advantages to having God be subject to natural law.

First of all you still can think of him having in some way defined these laws, but then voluntarily accepting to subject himself to law much in the way the savior voluntarily gave up his life, subjecting himself to death and the natural law of human life. So if it is important to you, God loses no "majesty"- but he becomes infinite in humility to allow himself to be subject to laws he has created for himself and us.

You also lose the problem of trying to explain what he was doing for all those eternities before he created earth, and why he would choose to create earth in the first place.

You lose the possibility that he created the race of men for the sole purpose of having someone to worship him- to me that makes him sound selfish and petty.

You gain the possibility that at least in principle, the world and cosmology could be probed and understood completely by science- in principle though it would probably take us longer than the race will be around, with the way we like to kill ourselves off with wars and all.

You gain an infinitely giving father and give up the Majestic King of the universe perhaps to a degree, but to me, I see that majestic king as someone great enough to give ME- stupid little insignificant ME the possibility that after eons of preparation I might actually be able to be like my father.

To me, there is no question that the trade offs are a bargain!

[_huckelberry]

mfbukowski: " So if it is important to you, God loses no "majesty"- but he becomes infinite in humility to allow himself to be subject to laws he has created for himself and us."

Thank you for the substantial reply. I liked the first part about the incarnation best. I think for any Christian beliefs the incarnation is a window into Gods heart and intention. We are to be friends not ants,grovelers or a mere cheering audience. I also think you are correct that Gods love of creation involves a willingness to place his actions and himself within creation and its laws.

I would not imagine that Gods love of creating and creation would be limited to this planet or our species

[_Buffalo]

I believe Joseph thought that there WAS no first god. Turtles all the way down. His thought experiment (taken from someone else, If I recall correctly) was to think of a ring. A ring is eternal until you cut it, and then it has a beginning and an end. Anything that has a beginning will have an end.