What is pure knowledge?

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Shall we chase our metaphysical tails on this for a while longer?

What I think I understand is that god created a universe where positivism is dead, therefore damning me, his idiot child that just wants cogent arguments and demonstrable proof.

Rather unpleasant.

Well you get to make your own world. If that's what you're making for yourself not much I can do about it.

 Been there done that a long time ago.

All my best. 

There's a door out , let me know when you're ready.   But you have to be honest.

I don't know if you have a philosophical background but that would help.

Good luck!

 

[FunOnlineMan]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Rather unpleasant.

Well you get to make your own world. If that's what you're making for yourself not much I can do about it.

 Been there done that a long time ago.

All my best. 

There's a door out , let me know when you're ready.   But you have to be honest.

I don't know if you have a philosophical background but that would help.

Good luck!

 

You can have honesty or philosophical background, but I refuse to concede two attributes.

In any case, I can tell you really want to show me, so go ahead. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, FunOnlineMan said:

She doesn’t sound so bad. 

At what grade level should this life be considered? Because the classroom management is terrible.

So  ...  you vote for infringement of freedom by G-d in order to level all roads so that nobody trips over any rocks.

[FunOnlineMan]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  you vote for infringement of freedom by G-d in order to level all roads so that nobody trips over any rocks.

It doesn’t really matter what I vote does it? We get the one shot at finding the one way, the one truth, and the one life, unless that book is wrong, then we have that same shot we hopefully didn’t squander on the first book, yadda yadda yadda, judgment day. Today, though, I learned that the LDS hell is heaven anyway, so we end up in the same place anyway. The short answer, though, is yes. That’s the plan for which I would cast my premortal vote. 

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

So if I understand the implications here, I can begin preparations to eat drink and be merry, for I was mistaken, and all is well in Zion. Heaven here I come, baby. 

Go for it, if that's all you want out of life! It's up to you!

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Shall we chase our metaphysical tails on this for a while longer?

What I think I understand is that god created a universe where positivism is dead, therefore damning me, his idiot child that just wants cogent arguments and demonstrable proof.

I'd probably disagree with Mark somewhat. While positivism is dead philosophically, I think wanting to verify truth claims is perfectly reasonable. I think the issue is that Mormonism presumes God hides himself somewhat until people take an active quest to find him. Then he'll answer but in a fashion that the verification is never passive. That is for most scientific claims one can sit on the couch and listen to scientists say why major theories have so much evidence such that it'd be irrational to doubt things like natural selection, general relativity or so forth. For God there's nothing like that. You just can't be a passive investigator. If you don't take an active role you'll never know.

[FunOnlineMan]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Go for it, if that's all you want out of life! It's up to you!

Mormons get a pretty bad rap. I feel like I’m being youth pastorized by this new hip doctrine. There’s still no home teaching anymore, right?

[FunOnlineMan]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd probably disagree with Mark somewhat. While positivism is dead philosophically, I think wanting to verify truth claims is perfectly reasonable. I think the issue is that Mormonism presumes God hides himself somewhat until people take an active quest to find him. Then he'll answer but in a fashion that the verification is never passive. That is for most scientific claims one can sit on the couch and listen to scientists say why major theories have so much evidence such that it'd be irrational to doubt things like natural selection, general relativity or so forth. For God there's nothing like that. You just can't be a passive investigator. If you don't take an active role you'll never know.

I appreciate you chiming in. 

I’m content to try playing a game of philosophy dodgeball or whatever he has planned for me, but it’s nice to have another guy in here just hoping for something they can use to actually find god, you know? My question for you would be why must he hide? And why can’t he provide repeatable, falsifiable, comparable evidence to me, his son Sean who really wants it. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by FunOnlineMan
I’m bad at writing

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

I’m content to try playing a game of philosophy dodgeball or whatever he has planned for me, but it’s nice to have another guy in here just hoping for something they can use to actually find god, you know? My question for you would be why must he hide? And why can’t he provide repeatable, falsifiable, comparable evidence to me, his son Sean who really wants it. 

I don't think Mark is playing dodgeball. Despite our differences on the point of verification, I think we actually have pretty similar views everywhere else. As a digression - our difference tends to be the difference between C. S. Peirce's type of pragmatism and the type one finds in William James or Richard Rorty. Peirce saw verification as key to pragmatism whereas James tended to take Peirce's criteria for meaning as a criteria for truth and make consequences not be measurements but just how helpful something was to living ones life. I think Mark makes compelling arguments along those lines. I just ultimately reject that approach to verification. The distinction primarily is due to Peirce having a background in logic, physics and chemistry where James was a psychologist. My background is physics, so I tend to think in those terms for verification.

To your question, the hiddenness of God is wrapped up in the Mormon conception of the plan of salvation. This is pretty key for Mormon understanding of life. In this view we all were pre-mortal spirits living with God. We had developed about as far as we possibly could under those circumstances. To help us with our development God offers to send us to this fallen, violent world and experience a kind of freedom we just couldn't experience with him. Part of coming to this world is to forget all our knowledge of God and so forth so that we'd be free. Each of us freely chose to be born, knowing the risks, because we felt it would aid our progression. God hides to maintain that balance. A big part of the development is learning to turn to God from this place of ignorance. If he were to reveal himself in a fashion that could be detected passively it'd undermine the whole point of salvation as developing to become like him.

To your final point, he can provide repeatable evidence, but you have to turn to him and develop that relationship with him directly. That is cry out in prayer and struggle until you get those revelations. 

[FunOnlineMan]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think Mark is playing dodgeball. Despite our differences on the point of verification, I think we actually have pretty similar views everywhere else. As a digression - our difference tends to be the difference between C. S. Peirce's type of pragmatism and the type one finds in William James or Richard Rorty. Peirce saw verification as key to pragmatism whereas James tended to take Peirce's criteria for meaning as a criteria for truth and make consequences not be measurements but just how helpful something was to living ones life. I think Mark makes compelling arguments along those lines. I just ultimately reject that approach to verification. The distinction primarily is due to Peirce having a background in logic, physics and chemistry where James was a psychologist. My background is physics, so I tend to think in those terms for verification.

To your question, the hiddenness of God is wrapped up in the Mormon conception of the plan of salvation. This is pretty key for Mormon understanding of life. In this view we all were pre-mortal spirits living with God. We had developed about as far as we possibly could under those circumstances. To help us with our development God offers to send us to this fallen, violent world and experience a kind of freedom we just couldn't experience with him. Part of coming to this world is to forget all our knowledge of God and so forth so that we'd be free. Each of us freely chose to be born, knowing the risks, because we felt it would aid our progression. God hides to maintain that balance. A big part of the development is learning to turn to God from this place of ignorance. If he were to reveal himself in a fashion that could be detected passively it'd undermine the whole point of salvation as developing to become like him.

To your final point, he can provide repeatable evidence, but you have to turn to him and develop that relationship with him directly. That is cry out in prayer and struggle until you get those revelations. 

First off, let me be clear that I meant he would be throwing the philosophy. I didn’t mean to demean his argument. I don’t think he’s being evasive at all. I just think asserting that nothing can be proved is a really hard position to attack. But I’ll let him show you the dodgeball process himself as he lobs arguments at my head any minute now. I know I would get a kick out of spectating something like that.

To your points: The plan of salvation is another name for god’s plan, right? If his need to stay hidden is part of the plan of salvation—and correct me if I’m wrong here—then the reason he stays hidden is because he planned things in such a way so that he’d have to hide? Couldn’t he balance the universe no matter what, because of how omni his potency is?

Unfortunately, the evidence I repeatedly received after 20 or so years of actively seeking god was a lot of wondering what it was going to feel like when it finally happened 

 

[USU78]

52 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

It doesn’t really matter what I vote does it? We get the one shot at finding the one way, the one truth, and the one life, unless that book is wrong, then we have that same shot we hopefully didn’t squander on the first book, yadda yadda yadda, judgment day. Today, though, I learned that the LDS hell is heaven anyway, so we end up in the same place anyway. The short answer, though, is yes. That’s the plan for which I would cast my premortal vote. 

I can't join you there.  Liberty matters too much.

And there is, moreover, this.  Are we really so worried about pain caused to us that we need never concern ourselves with the pain we have caused, or the gratitude we never felt or expressed until it was too late?

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by USU78

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

The plan of salvation is another name for god’s plan, right? If his need to stay hidden is part of the plan of salvation—and correct me if I’m wrong here—then the reason he stays hidden is because he planned things in such a way so that he’d have to hide? Couldn’t he balance the universe no matter what, because of how omni his potency is?

Mormons tend to see God's power as more limited than orthodox Christianity which tends to adopt the more Greek conception of all-power. While different Mormon thinkers define it differently, typically all have God as limited towards individual intelligences. That is he can't just make people what he wants them to be. What his limits are aren't quite clear, but typically the plan of salvation is seen as necessary due to his limits. He can provide opportunities for development but he can't just snap his fingers and make you into a completely different person against your will.

5 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Unfortunately, the evidence I repeatedly received after 20 or so years of actively seeking god was a lot of wondering what it was going to feel like when it finally happened 

Sometimes I think we expect something big and dramatic but it's not necessarily. (That's not to deny people have had such experience - just that I don't think it that common) However in small ways that are repeatable you can verify that God is there and learn to hear what he's saying. However in some ways everyones path is a little different. So it's not the sort of thing you can point to and just say, "do this."

Edited July 16, 2018 by clarkgoble

[FunOnlineMan]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

I can't join you there.  Liberty matters too much.

Is mark going to make us admit that there’s no free will now?

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I can't join you there.  Liberty matters too much.

Isaiah forever!

Isaiah Berlin, that is.

 

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

I appreciate you chiming in. 

I’m content to try playing a game of philosophy dodgeball or whatever he has planned for me, but it’s nice to have another guy in here just hoping for something they can use to actually find god, you know? My question for you would be why must he hide? And why can’t he provide repeatable, falsifiable, comparable evidence to me, his son Sean who really wants it. 

Have you ever taken an exam?

Anyway these guys have you covered.

We have all been around the block together before hundred times.

Good luck.

Edited July 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[FunOnlineMan]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Mormons tend to see God's power as more limited than orthodox Christianity which tends to adopt the more Greek conception of all-power. While different Mormon thinkers define it differently, typically all have God as limited towards individual intelligences. That is he can't just make people what he wants them to be. What his limits are aren't quite clear, but typically the plan of salvation is seen as necessary due to his limits. He can provide opportunities for development but he can't just snap his fingers and make you into a completely different person against your will.

Sometimes I think we expect something big and dramatic but it's not necessarily. (That's not to deny people have had such experience - just that I don't think it that common) However in small ways that are repeatable you can verify that God is there and learn to hear what he's saying. However in some ways everyones path is a little different. So it's not the sort of thing you can point to and just say, "do this."

Yeah, I read some Ostler a few years ago, and I liked that position as a defense against the problem of evil, etc., but I think it’s a tenuous balance to keep from allowing your god to be stripped of… I don’t know what to call it… worshipability or adorability, should you argue the point too well. I haven’t seen any live arguments covering lotsapotence (you have my permission to call it that) vs. omnipotence, though. I just feel like that’s the most likely attack on the position, right?

It shouldn’t matter what I expect to receive in response to fervent prayers for truth, though, should it? God should at least be potent enough to make sure I received the transmission. And how come Saul and Samuel and Joseph Smith Jr. and Moses and Thomas and the brother of Jared and Adam and the other guys I forgot about got to consime so much evidence where I am expected to survive on small and insufficient means? Am I jus a pinko for thinking we should all get even portions?

Finally, if there are no mechanics in place where you can use a “do this to observe that” sort of trial, then it’s difficult to trust these experiments will yield any usable data. 

[FunOnlineMan]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Have you ever taken an exam?

Anyway these guys have you covered.

We have all been around the block together before hundred times.

Good luck.

I’m willing to attempt to get through your door, if you’ll still have me. 

And yes, I’ve taken exams. What would god’s ratemyprofessor score look like if we are truly supposed to take an exam that will determine our level of happiness for the rest of forever? Especially after so many semesters of these lessons and study guides we’ve been provided? Like, in my classes, we’ve covered an endless array of different interpretations for Mormonism, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism, that condescending spaghetti monster one, and, of course, flat earth. 

No, life can’t be an exam. It may be more like a dissertation on cosmos sciences or something, but if so, it still doesn’t seem fair that certain students get the actual god as their advisor, some get spirit missionaries in a spirit prison, some get an old man who’s always kind of lived on the fringe and seems way more excitable today, and some get general conference coupled with old, fat books full of super thin pages covered in questionable content. 

Hey, dude, big time thanks for responding. I just remembered said you were busy. I talk insert-your-own-cuss-word a lot, but I do appreciate people being willing to discuss this stuff.

Edited July 16, 2018 by FunOnlineMan

[clarkgoble]

34 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Yeah, I read some Ostler a few years ago, and I liked that position as a defense against the problem of evil, etc., but I think it’s a tenuous balance to keep from allowing your god to be stripped of… I don’t know what to call it… worshipability or adorability, should you argue the point too well. I haven’t seen any live arguments covering lotsapotence (you have my permission to call it that) vs. omnipotence, though. I just feel like that’s the most likely attack on the position, right?

I think pure omnipotence is pretty hard to defend except for a purely platonic conception of the One. To me a huge problem in Christianity is really the nature of God - particularly the two natures of Christ. That's why historically you kept having more pure platonism slipping in and then getting attacked as a heresy. Blake adopts a process theology and open theist conception of God. While that's popular with some Mormon intellectuals it also is quite different from traditional theology. It also leads to a pretty different way of thinking about God. I prefer to avoid those metaphysical commitments and just start with the following:

1. God always is a material being living within an always existing universe of some sort

2. Within that universe are infinitely many other pre-existing beings

3. God is not the source of being but an actor living within this universe. 

From these you get God being maximally great but still pretty limited without needing to postulate new limits.

34 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

It shouldn’t matter what I expect to receive in response to fervent prayers for truth, though, should it? God should at least be potent enough to make sure I received the transmission. And how come Saul and Samuel and Joseph Smith Jr. and Moses and Thomas and the brother of Jared and Adam and the other guys I forgot about got to consime so much evidence where I am expected to survive on small and insufficient means? Am I jus a pinko for thinking we should all get even portions?

Again though it's not whether God could reveal himself so much as what he's trying to develop in you as you seek him. So I think you're conflating two different issues. After all Mormon theology has it that god could right now reveal himself to the world. It's just that were he to do so he'd be completely undermining his goals with this world, so he doesn't do it.

Even portions would presume even needs of development. I don't think that's the case. What you need in your development may be quite different from what I need, just as our individual strengths and weaknesses are different.

Quote

Finally, if there are no mechanics in place where you can use a “do this to observe that” sort of trial, then it’s difficult to trust these experiments will yield any usable data. 

Why do you think that? This is the normal state of affairs on the boundary of science for instance. There a strong element of trial and error and often how to interpret the results isn't clear.

Edited July 16, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

I’m willing to attempt to get through your door, if you’ll still have me. 

And yes, I’ve taken exams. What would god’s ratemyprofessor score look like if we are truly supposed to take an exam that will determine our level of happiness for the rest of forever? Especially after so many semesters of these lessons and study guides we’ve been provided? Like, in my classes, we’ve covered an endless array of different interpretations for Mormonism, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism, that condescending spaghetti monster one, and, of course, flat earth. 

No, life can’t be an exam. It may be more like a dissertation on cosmos sciences or something, but if so, it still doesn’t seem fair that certain students get the actual god as their advisor, some get spirit missionaries in a spirit prison, some get an old man who’s always kind of lived on the fringe and seems way more excitable today, and some get general conference coupled with old, fat books full of super thin pages covered in questionable content. 

Hey, dude, big time thanks for responding. I just remembered said you were busy. I talk insert-your-own-cuss-word a lot, but I do appreciate people being willing to discuss this stuff.

I don't and wouldn't get too worked up about it. Just pick the best metaphor that works for you. Without sure knowledge all we have to do is do our best anyway.

The key is having a good and purposeful life here and then whatever comes after if anything will take care of itself.

Today's certainty may change into something else when the time comes. Oh well such is life. And death.

I've done the best I can and that's got to be good enough or there's really nothing to worry about.

Unless of course God is malevolent and then we're all sc.... uh, messed up anyway.

But you already said my position is easy to defend. That's exactly why I take it. Why sweat it when there's a perfectly good answer that no one can refute.

The problem is getting most folks to see that positivism is dead. If you already can see that the class is over anyway.

Of course I don't think you really see that. But that's the answer. If you saw that you'd be there. If you see that positivism is dead there's nothing more for me to say. You can read up on that on your own.

There's one simple step from atheism to adoring God as a Mystic and that's it. One small step for mankind a giant leap for spirituality.

Nothing is provable. Checkmate.

Edited July 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[FunOnlineMan]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think pure omnipotence is pretty hard to defend except for a purely platonic conception of the One. To me a huge problem in Christianity is really the nature of God - particularly the two natures of Christ. That's why historically you kept having more pure platonism slipping in and then getting attacked as a heresy. Blake adopts a process theology and open theist conception of God. While that's popular with some Mormon intellectuals it also is quite different from traditional theology. It also leads to a pretty different way of thinking about God. I prefer to avoid those metaphysical commitments and just start with the following:

1. God always is a material being living within an always existing universe of some sort

2. Within that universe are infinitely many other pre-existing beings

3. God is not the source of being but an actor living within this universe. 

From these you get God being maximally great but still pretty limited without needing to postulate new limits.

Again though it's not whether God could reveal himself so much as what he's trying to develop in you as you seek him. So I think you're conflating two different issues. After all Mormon theology has it that god could right now reveal himself to the world. It's just that were he to do so he'd be completely undermining his goals with this world, so he doesn't do it.

Even portions would presume even needs of development. I don't think that's the case. What you need in your development may be quite different from what I need, just as our individual strengths and weaknesses are different.

Why do you think that? This is the normal state of affairs on the boundary of science for instance. There a strong element of trial and error and often how to interpret the results isn't clear.

One of you needs to teach me the ancient secrets of splitting up these quotes.

Using your 3 commitments, have you really created a being that is maximally great or even worthy of our worship? All we have is a thing that must be. What if the god you’re left with is a bowling pin or the sound of laughter or just a neat rock Like I was getting at, if you’re postulating limits on god, where is the cutoff point where he ceases to be god and just becomes a grouchy cosmic roommate 

As for the experiment stuff, I suppose I was assuming based on your final implication that you accept the belief that everybody has to find these truth experiments for themselves, and that these experiments, and for that matter, their results, would be difficult to perceive and most likely impossible to demonstrable to anyone apart from the person doing the experiment.

I may have assumed in error. I’ve been on here for basically like one day, and I’ve heard some pretty novel concepts about some stuff I thought was pretty well established as not the way people in here are establishing. Pretty impressive really.

[FunOnlineMan]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't and wouldn't get too worked up about it. Just pick the best metaphor that works for you. Without sure knowledge all we have to do is do our best anyway.

The key is having a good and purposeful life here and then whatever comes after if anything will take care of itself.

Today's certainty may change into something else when the time comes. Oh well such is life. And death.

I've done the best I can and that's got to be good enough or there's really nothing to worry about.

Unless of course God is malevolent and then we're all sc.... uh, messed up anyway.

But you already said my position is easy to defend. That's exactly why I take it. Why sweat it when there's a perfectly good answer that no one can refute.

The problem is getting most folks to see that positivism is dead. If you already can see that the class is over anyway.

Of course I don't think you really see that. But that's the answer. If you saw that you'd be there. If you see that positivism is dead there's nothing more for me to say. You can read up on that on your own.

There's one simple step from atheism to adoring God as a Mystic and that's it. One small step for mankind a giant leap for spirituality.

Nothing is provable. Checkmate.

I like your style, I just don’t see the connection. 

What I’m seeing in your explanation is that positivism is dead, then somehow that makes an unprovable and also at the same time an undisprovable (see what you made me do?) god necessarily exist? Or is your position really just that you believe god exists, and you don’t have to defend your position that god exists because of your preemptive position that positions can’t be attacked or defended?

If it’s the latter I’m sincerely impressed. That is the boldest take I've found anywhere.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

One of you needs to teach me the ancient secrets of splitting up these quotes.

If you click on the medium grey of the quote box it selects the whole box and puts a plus sign in the upper left. Now select copy and it copies the whole quote box. You can then paste it farther down you comments. Click on the interior of the box and you can select and replace the text inside. An other tip is that if you edit your comment you can also copy and paste the quote boxes including from other windows (at least with Safari). The quote boxes are pretty annoying. I wish you could edit the "from" part. But copy and paste lets you work around it.

10 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Using your 3 commitments, have you really created a being that is maximally great or even worthy of our worship? All we have is a thing that must be. What if the god you’re left with is a bowling pin or the sound of laughter or just a neat rock Like I was getting at, if you’re postulating limits on god, where is the cutoff point where he ceases to be god and just becomes a grouchy cosmic roommate 

Maximally great given the constraints. Whether that's maximally great enough really depends upon ones commitments. There are after all always limits. Even traditional Christianity limits God to what is logically consistent. And not even everyone agree's that's enough. 

As to your "worthy of your worship" there's a lot of assumptions there to unpack. Why buy into the Greek conception of what is worthy of worship? While post-Augustine Christians mostly bought into the Greek conceptions, they did create creation ex nihilo which is a big break from the Greek model. As I mentioned most Platonists would see that as inherently problematic. So is the traditional Trinitarian conception with creation ex nihilo maximally great and worthy of worship or is the traditional neoplatonic conception of late antiquity? Further a process theologian would say that the Greek conception fundamentally inverts this erroneously. The Greek conception reduces to unmoved mover. However a process theologian would say the maximally related being is greater than the maximally unrelated being. (Thus Blake Ostler's conception) 

My argument is just the problem of making an embodied interventionist God merged with this more Greek model. That's why the theology of the two natures of Christ (he's fully human and fully God) is so problematic and doesn't work well. There's a reason why so many 20th century theologians end up discarding most of the Jesus parts of Christian theology and move towards a more Greek conception. (Tillich is a great example) The question is always though is this conception of God where the "otherness" is so emphasized really worthy of worship? Is this, to borrow Heidegger's turn of phrase, a God before whom we can dance and sing?

My approach is more or less to say these theological and ontological debates are pointless since there's no way to define what makes something "maximally great" nor "worthy of worship." Instead one should pray and see who answers. You then start to learn their nature as they reveal themselves to you. It's this God of revelation that matters, not the God of the philosophers.

[FunOnlineMan]

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If you click on the medium grey of the quote box it selects the whole box and puts a plus sign in the upper left. Now select copy and it copies the whole quote box. You can then paste it farther down you comments. Click on the interior of the box and you can select and replace the text inside. An other tip is that if you edit your comment you can also copy and paste the quote boxes including from other windows (at least with Safari). The quote boxes are pretty annoying. I wish you could edit the "from" part. But copy and paste lets you work around it.

Maximally great given the constraints. Whether that's maximally great enough really depends upon ones commitments. There are after all always limits. Even traditional Christianity limits God to what is logically consistent. And not even everyone agree's that's enough. 

As to your "worthy of your worship" there's a lot of assumptions there to unpack. Why buy into the Greek conception of what is worthy of worship? While post-Augustine Christians mostly bought into the Greek conceptions, they did create creation ex nihilo which is a big break from the Greek model. As I mentioned most Platonists would see that as inherently problematic. So is the traditional Trinitarian conception with creation ex nihilo maximally great and worthy of worship or is the traditional neoplatonic conception of late antiquity? Further a process theologian would say that the Greek conception fundamentally inverts this erroneously. The Greek conception reduces to unmoved mover. However a process theologian would say the maximally related being is greater than the maximally unrelated being. (Thus Blake Ostler's conception) 

My argument is just the problem of making an embodied interventionist God merged with this more Greek model. That's why the theology of the two natures of Christ (he's fully human and fully God) is so problematic and doesn't work well. There's a reason why so many 20th century theologians end up discarding most of the Jesus parts of Christian theology and move towards a more Greek conception. (Tillich is a great example) The question is always though is this conception of God where the "otherness" is so emphasized really worthy of worship? Is this, to borrow Heidegger's turn of phrase, a God before whom we can dance and sing?

My approach is more or less to say these theological and ontological debates are pointless since there's no way to define what makes something "maximally great" nor "worthy of worship." Instead one should pray and see who answers. You then start to learn their nature as they reveal themselves to you. It's this God of revelation that matters, not the God of the philosophers.

That seems to be the consensus. 

 

And thanks or the info on the quote boxes. I’ll try it out, but I’m on my iPhone with its custom inaccurate screen that I got for dirt cheap on amazon when the standard issue screen shattered, so there’s really no helping me. 

Edited July 17, 2018 by FunOnlineMan
To say thanks

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, FunOnlineMan said:

I like your style, I just don’t see the connection. 

What I’m seeing in your explanation is that positivism is dead, then somehow that makes an unprovable and also at the same time an undisprovable (see what you made me do?) god necessarily exist? Or is your position really just that you believe god exists, and you don’t have to defend your position that god exists because of your preemptive position that positions can’t be attacked or defended?

If it’s the latter I’m sincerely impressed. That is the boldest take I've found anywhere.

They can only be true or false to a community who undstands their context.

That's standard deflationary theory- I didn't dream it up, unfortunately.

Ever heard of Wittgenstein? Most important philosopher of the 20th century?

Same stuff

Look up Richard Rorty and his importance. 

Same stuff. You have to get out a little more.

These dang Mormons have no clue what they've got combining Pragmatism with Christianity. Joseph Smith was a pure genius but none of the Mormons know that.

Well, a few.

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2018 by mfbukowski

[FunOnlineMan]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They can only be true or false to a community who undstands their context.

That's standard deflationary theory- I didn't dream it up, unfortunately.

Ever heard of Wittgenstein? Most important philosopher of the 20th century?

Same stuff

Look up Richard Rorty and his importance. 

Same stuff. You have to get out a little more.

These dang Mormons have no clue what they've got combining Pragmatism with Christianity. Joseph Smith was a pure genius but none of the Mormons know that.

Well, a few.

 

 

 

I’m glad you like your church. So, in the deflationary theory, why would a god be necessary? I still haven’t really seen that leap.

I also think you may be confused about what constitutes “getting out more.” Because even by the most liberal definitions, this phrase has never meant staying in to ruminate on Wittgenstein.