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

[mfbukowski]

Hello Mudcat,

Good to see you back on the boards. I must admit that I have very little confidence in the tenants of Philosophers.

I agree. In my experience, they seldom pay the rent.

But seriously, philosophy is just a tool and training for rational discourse. I would hate to be without a saw when I need one. Or Occam's Razor for that matter.

[Cold Steel]

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

It's a silly argument, really. I'm reading a book now by the Amazing Kreskin, and he deals greatly about how our own conceptions can affect reality. Affect, but not create, and that's the big difference. A starving man has never been saved from hunger by conceiving of an apple or of a loaf of bread. And the STAR TREK writers gave us Q, an entity of like entities in a thriving continuum, all completely omnipotent.

The reason the Hebrew God appeals to me is because of reason. He creates man and then reasons with him as an adult might reason with an intelligent child. Q could create the world in a flash; however, the Hebrew God spent six days (or eras) creating the Earth. As we learn more about the universe, we have reason to believe the creation took somewhat longer.

I recall the lines from STAR WARS:

Luke: Well, more money than YOU can imagine.

Hans Solo: I don't know, kid, I can imagine an awful lot!

.

[Mudcat]

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.

TSS,

It isn't that I don't see your point.

Something from nothing, is quite a logical contradiction. Out of nothing, nothing comes.

But is it illogical to posit that from God, all things come? To put a bit of a spin on things regarding the discussion of creation "ex nihilo" or "ex materia", I would offer an alternative. Creation of God or "ek Theos". Now I am not promoting pantheism TSS, but perhaps panentheism... to some extent.

That being said, which is more logical, a God that creates all? Or a God which "arises" in some respect from that which exists?

To flip the coin on you. I would state that matter creates nothing. If it does not create, then nothing can arise from it. If nothing can arise from it, then nothing exists other than meaningless matter.

At some point in this "infinite regress" you have to address the concept of God doing it or God arising from what was done.

I say this because we are talking about an "actual" infinity. Not something like Zeno's paradox, in which it is impossible to cross a room because you would first have to cross half of it, and before that a quarter ... to the infinite. Sounds like a bit of a challenge till one takes a few steps and crosses the room.

Rather an actual infinity of events must have preceded this one.... that leads to logical contradictions.

So how do you account for it?

Regards,

Mudcat

[CV75]

So how do you account for it?

We only see and "see" what our present limitations allow. The purpose of faith and the objects of faith is to take us beyond those limitations in due course.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Regards,

Mudcat

A God who can command the elements and form and move the universe as He pleases seems very awesome to me, no less so than one who can create matter. IMHO

[Smith]

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

To my mind the arguments are circular for one, and then how does one know that the premises provided are correct or needed. they are assumptions. The conclusion can be no more than an assumption also.

[Jason]

That being said, which is more logical, a God that creates all? Or a God which "arises" in some respect from that which exists?

To flip the coin on you. I would state that matter creates nothing. If it does not create, then nothing can arise from it. If nothing can arise from it, then nothing exists other than meaningless matter.

At some point in this "infinite regress" you have to address the concept of God doing it or God arising from what was done.

I say this because we are talking about an "actual" infinity. Not something like Zeno's paradox, in which it is impossible to cross a room because you would first have to cross half of it, and before that a quarter ... to the infinite. Sounds like a bit of a challenge till one takes a few steps and crosses the room.

Rather an actual infinity of events must have preceded this one.... that leads to logical contradictions.

So how do you account for it?

As you point out, if there were an infinity of events preceding this one then there was no beginning.

If there was no beginning then there need be no single "ultimate cause".

If you can argue for the existence of one God, why only one?

[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.

Hi Lightbearer,

Good to be back for a bit. As to your charge of "smacks of atheism" you might be quite right, as my PC time of late has been primarily consumed with maintaining a thread on a primarily atheistic discussion forum that has become rather beleaguering but somewhat entertaining as well. Maybe a bit of it is rubbing off on me... hope not. Regardless a discussion with theists about theistic stuff would be a good unwind.

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 think at least regarding the arguments posited, it would be good to keep in mind that they were launched by Christian theists. But you make a good point in that the arguments seem a bit anthropomorphic. I think the underlying question a theist might have to deal with would be. Is the greatest conceivable being not God?

IMO, our conceptions of God will fall short of an actual description of sorts. IIRC, someone on the thread said the imagination is unbounded... but I am not even sure that is the actual case. My imagination in many ways is somewhat relative to my experience but how I relate associations is likely where creativity comes from. I could relate "fly" with things that don't fly in a natural sense... like flying chairs, people, oysters and so forth. But I wonder if I could come up with the notion of flying oysters if I had no experience of anything flying?

I find myself a bit of a fence straddler on it. I do think got is the greatest conceivable being... in that I don't think it is conceivable that there is a greater being than God. However, I think that the human mind is fully capable of conceiving of God. It is a bit of a paradox. Like saying, "God is the greatest being beyond conception." Really isn't much of an answer, but I don't have a better one at the moment.

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. This I believe is why the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ had to be restored, the philosophies of men had so polluted the creeds that they denied the scriptures. Now the following is the philosophy of a prophet of God and I think it sort of speaks to what you are trying to ask here:Thus this scripture sustains that the Lord is the "greatest conceivable God" and yet we all are eternal beings capable of advancement. To me the greatest conceivable God, is one who is omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving. He is perfect and He is our father, the father of our spirits. His beloved Son is our Lord and savior and thus becomes the "father of our resurrected body of flesh and bone" and has prepared a way for us to become as He is if we will follow Him. That is the most perfect God I can imagine who's "work and glory is the bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." What an unselfish God, who seeks our best and ultimate good and our happiness. That happiness is to become one with Him and as He is and become a perfect being dedicated to the love and blessing of His children. I am not sure if this answers your questions but it is just a few thoughts I had reading the OP.

I bolded a bit of your statement. Seems when trying to reconcile an omnimax deity with what we can conceive then we will always run in to difficulty, that is if our conceptions actually do have limitations.

Thanks as always for your thoughts,

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[wenglund]

I can't concieve of a God who would prefer that his creations utilize their God-given ability of reasoning to wage counteproductive philosophical battles over who can imagine the "greatest concievable God", instead of their applying their congnative skills towards better enabling themselves and others to become more like Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mudcat]

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.

Fair enough Bukowski.

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.

Sure, I agree to an extent. To say that something is "greatest" and "conceivable" and "perfect", implies some presupposition of existence. However, the depth of that presupposition is another issue, in that abstract objects like concepts or minds could be said to exist. Though I suppose if your aren't a mind/body dualist an argument could made against "minds" existing abstractly.

IOW, the perfect unicorn may not exist, but it possible that the concept of a perfect unicorn does exist. Now a concept isn't tangible in any sense, and this would fit the immateriality of God, that many Christians associate with God. However, concepts can't act upon anything.

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!

I am going to disagree here. Let me give you a somewhat naturalistic example. The perfect caterpillar, made a perfect cocoon and became a perfect butterfly. So change and perfect, at least in this example don't imply imperfection.

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.

Well your experience in philosophy certainly outstrips mine. So I'll take that your statement here as a priori unless refuted for any good reason.

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/

I'll try to give them a read through and thanks for posting the links Bukowski.

I've noticed in the last couple of threads we have ended up in the same territory; I am sure Honorentheos will be along any time now.

Maybe so. You can't ever tell with him. But I agree, that we seem to share a certain propensity to philosophize around the water cooler.

BTW... this thread has me thinking about a topic that might be fleshed out a bit better in another thread so I may start a new one soon.

Kind Regards,

Mudcat

[ERMD]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Who was very rarely stable

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar

Who could think you under the table

David Hume could out-consume

Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine

Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya

'Bout the raising of the wrist

Socrates himself was permanently pissed

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will

With half a pint of shandy got particularly ill

Plato, they say, could stick it away

Half a crate of whiskey every day

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle

Hobbes was fond of his dram

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart

"I drink therefore I am"

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed

A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed