Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[Philo Sofee]

Gad:
If "maximal greatness" exists in every possible world, then maximal greatness is necessary.

An impossibility if infinity is real... just sayin.......

[Limnor]

On the one hand, you have an a priori framework that asserts maximal greatness is necessary*. A priori truths are like, 1+1=2. So on the left, maximal greatness is defined by logic alone. On the right, I have the Bible, a book of the adventures of a "man of war" called Jehovah, Jesus, God made flesh who ascended as flesh, the Holy spirit, a mighty wind, and a Spirit called the Father. Now we're going to do two things, a) stipulate a "trinity", a single being made up of these other beings as described in the Bible, and b) stipulate that the trinity equates to maximal greatness.

I’m not trying to make the Trinity a logical necessity in the way 1+1=2 is, but looking at it from the perspective of whether the revealed picture of Father, Son, and Spirit would work within the concept of maximal greatness. I think it does, and think it fits better than a singular deity model.

I think it’s important to include moral perfection within a definition of maximal greatness, and moral perfection includes love in an expressed relational manner to me. Whatever the maximally great being is in any possible world, it should not be morally inferior to this.

I get your point about rock potato dog, but I think that analogy thins the concept of greatness too much—rock potato dog isn’t omniscient, omnipotent, or morally perfect. I’d want there to be a fullness to greatness.

[Gadianton]

I’m not trying to make the Trinity a logical necessity in the way 1+1=2 is, but looking at it from the perspective of whether the revealed picture of Father, Son, and Spirit would work within the concept of maximal greatness

Well, we were discussing Plantinga, and he does make the Trinity a logical necessity in the same way 1+1=2. It's tricky because it sounds like you want to say that the trinity is consistent with maximal greatness, or it's possible that the trinity is maximally great, but just remember it's a setup, because maximal greatness would be even more maximal if it existed in every possible world, thus being necessary.

I would try to localize it, like, in possible worlds that approximate ours, the trinity is the most conceivably great configuration for God. But now that we've got that far, what's your argument for it?

(I think the necessity stuff is baggage for the discussion we're trying to have, I'm happy to discuss it, but I think it's extraneous to the conversation)

I think it does, and think it fits better than a singular deity model.

Why? (explaining why you think this would be highly relevant)

I get your point about rock potato dog, but I think that analogy thins the concept of greatness too much—rock potato dog isn’t omniscient, omnipotent, or morally perfect

I've stipulated them as omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect. For the sake of a theological conversation, it's a stipulation. We're taking things in the world, such as stories from the Bible, and trying to work them into a theoretical framework. Nobody has any real evidence for an omniscient being.

We have this idea that God, by definition, is the greatest being, singular, we can think of. How is it that a trinity concept fits this better than the more obvious, single deity, like Jehovah per JWs?

[huckelberry]

I find myself wondering what the criteria is best to use for determining one thing to be greater than another. In one way a pile of 20 bricks is greater than a pile of 5 bricks.
But if 5 was what was needed for a particular job 20 would be just getting in the way.

Or it is like asking whether one musician is greater than another. Is one asking who is more famous, more influential., more inventive, Has more technical skill, or perhaps who one likes the best.?

I think in Anselms time there was an idea of a great chain or hierarchy of increasing order.

[Limnor]

Where I struggle is this: if love is central to moral perfection, I find it difficult to see how a solitary God avoids making love contingent on creation. I think the trinity model fits better because if love is a factor in maximal greatness, then it should be intrinsic to God rather than contingent upon anything else. A single person God only becomes relationally loving once creation exists. But a God that is three persons with one essence can express relational love from eternity in a self-contained being that wouldn’t depend on creation.

[malkie]

I find myself wondering what the criteria is best to use for determining one thing to be greater than another. In one way a pile of 20 bricks is greater than a pile of 5 bricks.
But if 5 was what was needed for a particular job 20 would be just getting in the way.

Or it is like asking whether one musician is greater than another. Is one asking who is more famous, more influential., more inventive, Has more technical skill, or perhaps who one likes the best.?

I think in Anselms time there was an idea of a great chain or hierarchy of increasing order.

Would "fitness for purpose" fit your purpose, huckelberry?

[Limnor]

Maybe we should clarify what we mean by maximal greatness.

Is intrinsic relational love part of that definition?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Maybe we should clarify what we mean by maximal greatness.

Is intrinsic relational love part of that definition?

What if we shift maximal greatness from a being to a structure? At some point God has to be everywhere all at once in order for his godhood to work at a philosophical level, so why not make greatness of a function of structure rather than something that exists within it? God is the universe in all its forms.

[Limnor]

Maybe we should clarify what we mean by maximal greatness.

Is intrinsic relational love part of that definition?

What if we shift maximal greatness from a being to a structure? At some point God has to be everywhere all at once in order for his godhood to work at a philosophical level, so why not make greatness of a function of structure rather than something that exists within it? God is the universe in all its forms.

I think that can work but does that reduce into just describing material? Unless the structure has will, or consciousness, or any of the other “omnis,” are we just describing things we can sense physically? Would there be a point to calling that “God?”

[Gadianton]

An impossibility if infinity is real... just sayin.......

Feel free to post your AI conversation (in the other thread for the mods). The idea of "maximal greatness" is controversial for sure. Like I've said, I think it's a side issue to what I'm trying to get at in this thread, but how it tangles up with infinity, I'm not seeing it off the top of my head.

I find myself wondering what the criteria is best to use for determining one thing to be greater than another. In one way a pile of 20 bricks is greater than a pile of 5 bricks. But if 5 was what was needed for a particular job 20 would be just getting in the way.

You've jumped right onto my page. Limnor made this comment in another thread: "Point 2: perfectly Pythonesque lol". In python, a "tab" is reduced to four spaces. When Ockham debated Duns S, his "razor" was "don't multiply entities beyond necessity." Duns wanted to say that particulars are real, like chairs, and also universals are real; there is something "real" about "chairness". Ockham's Razor says the last thing you want to do is create a category.

Start with just Jesus. Jesus is revealed as God and has a physical body in heaven. I'm unconcerned whether maximal greatness implies necessity. Now enter God the father. The Father is revealed as God who is spirit. We have one maximally great being with a body, and one that is spirit. What are our options? Are there two Gods when God is implied as singular, and how can two totally different kinds of beings be said to both be maximally great? Different religions have proposed different solutions based on the same kind of logic as that of comparing piles of bricks or deliberating over what a tab should be when coding.

Is intrinsic relational love part of that definition?

so why not make greatness of a function of structure rather than something that exists within it?

Cam's solution is Goedel's solution, which is the most sophisticated OA (though it was a mere back-of-the-envelope sketch), it's completely bloodless, and so tautological that you can't possibly use it for sectarian apologetics. Really, any OA isn't good for much beyond debates with unbelievers, just the first part of Anselm's really seems to capture what people mean by "God".

The problem with OA's, for the believer, and why a believer may want to avoid them, is they put a huge credibility strain on any beliefs that stray from a most basic God. I suspect that's the kind of God Cam would want, so that's a feature. Because God must exist in all logically possible worlds, you must explain God in the world of turtles swimming through space or the world with a single neutron. It's straightforward to imagine Goedel's kind of God, we're just going to say that God makes the properties of the sole neutron possible. But Plantinga's makes the same maximal being a requirement in every possible world. So now God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are right there in the world of a single neutron.

To make Plantinga's less ridiculous, to make it intuitive for how the same maximal being must be within every possible world, you've got to make concessions. Jesus has a body in heaven? Well --- his body is contingent upon matters of this world. It's the essence of the trinity that's in every possible world. Okay, so in the world of turtles swimming through space, there must be a maximal being that experiences full relational love? I'm not feeling the force of it thrust into my mind as OAs dictate should happen. But it's even worse if its the world of a lone neutron. The amount of nuancing so make it work out might be a task for next-gen AI.