Arguments against LDS Gods or perhaps an argument for a "first" God.

[Mudcat]

I suppose this is a bit of a brainteaser. Anselm and Descartes put forth what might be considered ontological arguments for a "greatest conceivable" God.

Anselm

[cdowis]

God is, in reality, constrained by natural law but our imagination is not.

[jadams_4242]

I suppose this is a bit of a brainteaser. Anselm and Descartes put forth what might be considered ontological arguments for a "greatest conceivable" God.

So here are two very similar arguments for "God". However, both arguments support God as being the greatest conceivable being. From my understanding the LDS conception of God actually falls short of "greatest conceivable being". For example, a God that organizes preexisting material would not be the greatest conceivable being, because a God that could create matter from nothing would be greater and also still be conceivable. I don't want to make a big deal out of creating from something vs. nothing... there are other examples, this was the first that came to mind.

Here are my questions.

If these arguments are not true, then why are they false?

If these arguments are true, would this not be an argument for a greatest(possibly first) God?

Regards,

Mudcat

So you want to know where the "dust" came from?

[mfbukowski]

The key is in a discussion of how "existence" is a "perfection".

Sounds pretty medieval to me. Step one would be to define each.

Good luck on that one.

Do fictional characters like say, Zeus or any other one "exist"?

What if they change people's lives and the works that contain them have actual followers. (What was the name of that Ayn Rand character?)

The Beatles at the height of Beatlemania said they were more important than Jesus (not seriously) because more people were interested in them than in Jesus. So were they "greater"? (Just making a logical point about definitions)

If we can imagine a mountain greater than Everest (we can!) does that make it "exist"? Would such a mountain be "more perfect" than Everest?

Remember, to Descartes, "perfect" MEANT "completed" and therefore "existent". So to me he was begging the question. Anything that exists, exists. That is really what he is saying ultimately

Well, that's a start.

[Mudcat]

God is, in reality, constrained by natural law but our imagination is not.

Hi C,

That is a fair enough assertion, I suppose.

"God is.. constrained by natural law."

So in a sense you are saying that our imaginations are greater than God, in the sense that something greater than God can be conceived in our imagination than what actually exists. So we could safely say that God is completely conceivable. Have I got that right.

Also, another question if God is "constrained" by natural law. Then why is this the case? If God is constrained, then it would seem that natural law supersedes God in some respect? I mean if God is subservient to "natural law", then why is he God?

Regards,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

So you want to know where the "dust" came from?

I actually believe I have an answer to that question.

[mercyngrace]

Mudcat,

The flaw is in the first argument is that "conceivable" is synonymous with "imaginable".

Anselm's argument restate's his definition of God three times and then says "Voila! God."

The flaw in using the second argument as you desire is that this argument speaks to existence and nothing more. A million beings that embody perfection could exist simultaneously and meet the demands of this logic. At best you can argue that "God" has always existed in a perfect state so there is no progression as LDS believe but the counter-argument would be that this definition is based upon our ability to conceive which is limited by our existence not God's.

[Tsuzuki]

Wait, does this mean that God was actually created by Anselm and Descartes?

[Tsuzuki]

Once when I was a kid, I imagined a being who had the power to manifest in the real world and grant me omnipotence. Unfortunately, he has yet to actually do this.

[Mudcat]

The key is in a discussion of how "existence" is a "perfection".

Sounds pretty medieval to me. Step one would be to define each.

Good luck on that one.

Hi Bukowski,

Hope things are well with you.

I'd better fess up on my intention. I was having to deal with this sort of argumentation in a galaxy far, far away. And thought it might pose a bit of a challenge to LDS in some respect... being an argument for an omni-max type deity. IMO, I don't find either version highly persuasive, but I would count them as "good" arguments in that they are logically sound.

As to the definition of "existence" or "perfection". I am wondering how seriously to address the subject. I don't think such terms would meet some sort of non-cognitive argument and most people have an operational definition of both terms.

However, what I see as the crux for LDS, would be a definition of either term as something less than the term could be maximally conceived.

Do fictional characters like say, Zeus or any other one "exist"?

I don't think Zeus would fit the parameter of "greatest conceivable".

What if they change people's lives and the works that contain them have actual followers. (What was the name of that Ayn Rand character?)

John Gault, but Gault wasn't portrayed as an omni anything.. Perhaps a great mind, but he certainly wasn't bulletproof and didn't come up with a cure for mortality either.

The Beatles at the height of Beatlemania said they were more important than Jesus (not seriously) because more people were interested in them than in Jesus. So were they "greater"? (Just making a logical point about definitions)

Now you may be on to something with a definition of "greater". This IMO is where the argument has a problem. Say I conceive of the greatest thing and you do as well. However our conceptions are variant...so what would we do?

Thus the lack of persuasion of the arguments, IMO. However, unless LDS could posit that "God" is the greatest conceivable being, then there is no contender of "greatest concievable being" put forth. So the arguments must be dismantled beforehand.

If we can imagine a mountain greater than Everest (we can!) does that make it "exist"? Would such a mountain be "more perfect" than Everest?

Well I think this is a convolution of terminology. First there is a fallacy, that Everest is the greatest mountain. If I can concieve of a greater mountain then Everest would fall short. Also, the arguments address greatest "things". So it would have to be discerned that any mountain would be a greater thing than the greatest conceivable sentient being... I don't think you could put it through though.

Remember, to Descartes, "perfect" MEANT "completed" and therefore "existent". So to me he was begging the question. Anything that exists, exists. That is really what he is saying ultimately

Well, that's a start.

I am not sure I am following here. Descartes recognized his existence, but I don't think he recognized himself as perfect.

Regards,

Mudcat

[oats]

If God is constrained, then it would seem that natural law supersedes God in some respect? I mean if God is subservient to "natural law", then why is he God?

Let's assume that any type of matter has constraints.

Now what if God, with His godly abilities, creates more matter of a different sort than current exists. The new matter has constraints just like the older type(s) of matter do(es). Is God still constrained, though He be its creator?

I have never thought of any entity that does not possess constraints. I guess it is beyond what I can think. I wonder if thinking of God as some sort of entity is less mystical than thinking that spirit and God involve no matter whatsoever.

[Mudcat]

Hi Oats!

Thanks for your thoughts, as always.

Let's assume that any type of matter has constraints.

That would be an assumption I am prepared to make, because it seems matter has constraints.

Now what if God, with His godly abilities, creates more matter of a different sort than current exists. The new matter has constraints just like the older type(s) of matter do(es). Is God still constrained, though He be its creator?

This would be a question of the imposition of the "constraints" of matter. Does God constrain natural law, in that nature reflects him. Or is he bound by the constraints of natural law....

It is a bit of a Euthyphro dilemma, IMO.

I have never thought of any entity that does not possess constraints. I guess it is beyond what I can think. I wonder if thinking of God as some sort of entity is less mystical than thinking that spirit and God involve no matter whatsoever.

So if all beings are constrained, then what constrains them? and why does "whatever that constrains them" have the power to do so. I would recognize self imposed constraints, but if constraints are not self imposed then we would have to recognize that something other than "self" imposes authority.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[David T]

Mudcat:

I think you'd find this book fascinating. It addresses this head on philosophically and logically.

[SearchDog]

I suppose this is a bit of a brainteaser. Anselm and Descartes put forth what might be considered ontological arguments for a "greatest conceivable" God.

So here are two very similar arguments for "God". However, both arguments support God as being the greatest conceivable being. From my understanding, the LDS conception of God actually falls short of "greatest conceivable being". For example, a God that organizes preexisting material would not be the greatest conceivable being, because a God that could create matter from nothing would be greater and also still be conceivable. I don't want to make a big deal out of creating from something vs. nothing... there are other examples, this was the first that came to mind.

Here are my questions.

If these arguments are not true, then why are they false?

If these arguments are true, would this not be an argument for a greatest(possibly first) God?

Regards,

Mudcat

I would say that the human mind is not capable of defining what the "greatest conceivable God" is. The values we might place on what should be considered the greatest conceivable God is limited.

The human imagination might not be bound, but it seems impractical that God should be bound by human imagination.

LDS doctrine is safe because it is rooted in the concept of eternal progression. So any God which we describe does not have to be the greatest conceivable only the most understandable. The LDS God becomes the God at our place in time and human understanding based on revelation, not imagination. This form of theology does not require that our God be the greatest conceivable because there is always room for what came before our present understanding which we have yet to learn.

So in LDS theology this opened ended definition of God is the most powerful reality and probable the most accurate vision of God.

[Zakuska]

I suppose this is a bit of a brainteaser. Anselm and Descartes put forth what might be considered ontological arguments for a "greatest conceivable" God.

So here are two very similar arguments for "God". However, both arguments support God as being the greatest conceivable being. From my understanding, the LDS conception of God actually falls short of "greatest conceivable being". For example, a God that organizes preexisting material would not be the greatest conceivable being, because a God that could create matter from nothing would be greater and also still be conceivable. I don't want to make a big deal out of creating from something vs. nothing... there are other examples, this was the first that came to mind.

Here are my questions.

If these arguments are not true, then why are they false?

If these arguments are true, would this not be an argument for a greatest(possibly first) God?

Regards,

Mudcat

Pretty simple. Its a logical imposibility. Its illustrated in the question.

Can God make a rock so big that even he can't lift it?

His strength would have to be equal in magnitude and weight to anything he created.

So then how can he be all powerful? If his strength is Equal to but not greater than his creation?

[Tsuzuki]

Pretty simple. Its a logical imposibility. Its illustrated in the question.

Can God make a rock so big that even he can't lift it?

His strength would have to be equal in magnitude and weight to anything he created.

So then how can he be all powerful? If his strength is Equal to but not greater than his creation?

Maybe that explains the problem of evil. God made a rock one day, and called it Satan.

[Zakuska]

Maybe that explains the problem of evil. God made a rock one day, and called it Satan.

One question... When did "Evil" become a problem?

True, He gets kicked around a bit but God doesn't simply just take him out of existance. I wonder why?

[mfbukowski]

Remember, to Descartes, "perfect" MEANT "completed" and therefore "existent". So to me he was begging the question. Anything that exists, exists. That is really what he is saying ultimately

I am not sure I am following here. Descartes recognized his existence, but I don't think he recognized himself as perfect.

What I meant, is that both Descartes and Anselm wrote in latin. In latin, "existence" is a "perfection" because it is implied by the very meaning of "perfection"

The MEANING of the latin word "perfectus", an adjective, is as follows:

perfectus

perfect.us ADJ 1 1 NOM S M POS

perfectus, perfecta, perfectum ADJ [XXXDX] lesser

perfect, complete; excellent;

perfect.us VPAR 3 1 NOM S M PERF PASSIVE PPL

perficio, perficere, perfeci, perfectus V [XXXAX]

complete, finish; execute; bring about, accomplish; do thoroughly;

The main meaning is "complete" or "finished" - so of course that implies existence. So a think which is "perfect" is of course "complete" AND existent. Not complete = not existent.

So the very language he is using creates the argument. Of course God is perfect, or he wouldn't be God, right? We define God as "perfect". So of course then, in latin, he must exist.

So the conclusion is in the very definitions of the words themselves.

Not a good argument. It's like saying I look like an elephant because I am elephantine. Cars get from one place to another by their property of movement.

I can imagine a perfect unicorn, but that doesn't mean it exists.

[CV75]

a God that could create matter from nothing would be greater

But only if conceivable by nothing.

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

Can God make a rock bigger than He can lift?

[Mudcat]

Mudcat:

Can God make a rock bigger than He can lift?

Fair question TSS. It the paradox of the stone, is one that is tailored to show that omnipotence is illogical.

To answer the question:

God cannot make rock so big that he cannot lift it.

or to put that in the affimative.

Any rock God can make he can lift.

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

Of course it is illogical. Just as creation out of nothing is illogical.

In your example a logical proposition would be that God doesn't create anything.

[Mudcat]

What I meant, is that both Descartes and Anselm wrote in latin. In latin, "existence" is a "perfection" because it is implied by the very meaning of "perfection"

The MEANING of the latin word "perfectus", an adjective, is as follows:

Well I am following you better now. Didn't know what you were driving at earlier, but if they used the same word.. or variant of the same word in Latin then I see where you are going. I am no Latin expert and have only looked at the arguments in English. I did do a little bit of looking around and can't find a Latin copy of either argument. I did note that "existence" would be from a word "exsisto" and as you said perfect would be "perfectus".

Given my handicap in Latin and no Latin transcript, here is my thinking on what you have said. If existence is a perfection, then it would stand to reason that anything that exists would be "a perfection" of sorts. But surely that can't be the case, I mean take Descartes for example, if he believed his existence were perfection, then what need would there have been for Christ and IIRC he was a Christian. Seems logically contradictory for sure.

I would be hard pressed to believe that Latin was so linguistically bound as to make discussing such terminology so cognitively difficult. But what do I know, maybe that is why its a dead language.

The main meaning is "complete" or "finished" - so of course that implies existence. So a think which is "perfect" is of course "complete" AND existent. Not complete = not existent.

But surely there is a distinction between existent and perfect. Are you saying that these folks were saying that all things that exist are perfect. Of maybe better stated, that there are no imperfect things that exist?

So the very language he is using creates the argument. Of course God is perfect, or he wouldn't be God, right? We define God as "perfect". So of course then, in latin, he must exist.

I have a feeling our discussion will likely come unglued if we continue with a language I am unfamiliar with. Would you be okay, with the discussing the arguments as presented in English?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Lightbearer]

I suppose this is a bit of a brainteaser. Anselm and Descartes put forth what might be considered ontological arguments for a "greatest conceivable" God.

So here are two very similar arguments for "God". However, both arguments support God as being the greatest conceivable being. From my understanding, the LDS conception of God actually falls short of "greatest conceivable being". For example, a God that organizes preexisting material would not be the greatest conceivable being, because a God that could create matter from nothing would be greater and also still be conceivable. I don't want to make a big deal out of creating from something vs. nothing... there are other examples, this was the first that came to mind.

Here are my questions.

If these arguments are not true, then why are they false?

If these arguments are true, would this not be an argument for a greatest(possibly first) God?

Regards,

Mudcat

Hello Mudcat,

Good to see you back on the boards. I must admit that I have very little confidence in the tenants of Philosophers. However, I will try to answer your questions the best I can. First the idea of a "greatest conceivable" God sort of smacks of atheism. I mean is that the same as saying that man basically "creates God in his own image"? Such a notion is offensive to me. The fact that there are thousands of religions in the world shows me that just because someone can "conceive" of a God, does not mean He exists as that individual conceives Him. I firmly believe that God stands revealed or He is forever unknown. Without revelation we cannot understand the nature of God, otherwise it is just a guess or at worst a figment of our imagination. That is why I feel that Joseph Smith was needed in our society, with all of the speculation and philosophy connected with the creeds of the churches, it makes one feel like God is unknowable, or as the two philosophers you quote whatever we can conceive.

(D&C 1:16-23) "They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall. Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments; And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets

[mfbukowski]

I have a feeling our discussion will likely come unglued if we continue with a language I am unfamiliar with. Would you be okay, with the discussing the arguments as presented in English?

Sure no problem because I think that there is the same problem, just less obvious, in the English. But before we go on, I am not about to say that I am an "expert" Latin scholar by any means, because I am strictly a duffer with two years of high school latin with the good Augustinian Fathers under my belt. I have tried to keep it up, but you know how that goes. I don't want to expose myself as a target to someone who really does know what he is talking about in latin, and no, I have not attempted to look up the original.

Bottom line: I could be wrong about my point, but I don't think so! So if anyone wants to correct me, please do!

But surely there is a distinction between existent and perfect. Are you saying that these folks were saying that all things that exist are perfect. Of maybe better stated, that there are no imperfect things that exist?

Well I am certainly not saying that!

But it is well known that the notion of something being "completed" is really what the ancients meant by "perfect". Note that that is the first definition of "perfectus".

It's not that they were saying that all things that exist are perfect, but certainly all perfect things exist. To me, that is where he is begging the question.

Remember what he is saying when he says that "perfect things exist" is actually "completed things exist". One of the things that makes something "greater" to these guys is the fact that it is "completed". After all, isn't a completed house "greater" than an uncompleted house?

The problem with that is that change is therefore inherently "imperfect", and it becomes a problem. The LDS pov takes the opposite stance, that change is part and parcel of what reality is, but we would agree with Parmenides that matter is eternal. So it gets tricky!

The notion that process is imperfection is at the cornerstone of this thinking which goes back to Aristotle and before him Plato, and before him Parmenides and Pythagoras. Parmenides went so far as to believe that change was not real, since nothing can come from nothing, "to be is to be eternal". Really, this stuff influenced all of western philosophy for thousands of years.

This stuff is very confusing to modern ears. But that is why I brought up the Latin, because it really all is "ancient-think".

But at the crux of all of it is this idea that if something is "perfect" it must exist.

If you want to follow the argument into modern times, I would suggest you first read about Parmenides here.

And even Bertrand Russel, a prominent modern philosopher worked on the same problem:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/

Russell's treatment of Parmenides in his A History of Western Philosophy was conditioned by his own abiding concern with the problems of analysis posed by negative existential statements. The essence of Parmenides' argument, according to Russell, is as follows:

When you think, you think of something; when you use a name, it must be the name of something. Therefore both thought and language require objects outside themselves. And since you can think of a thing or speak of it at one time as well as another, whatever can be thought of or spoken of must exist at all times. Consequently there can be no change, since change consists in things coming into being or ceasing to be (Russell 1945, 49).

Here the unargued identification of the subject of Parmenides' discourse as