Rivers Posted January 14, 2019 Posted January 14, 2019 How exactly should Latter-day Saints argue for the existence of God? I've become interested in the more philosophical arguments for God. However, many of the philosophical arguments hinge on defining God is an uncreated unmoved mover that is the first of cause of everything. Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, have a much different view of God. We view God as essentially one of us but in a higher plain of existence. IMO we view our relationship with God as being more important that any ontological understanding of God. I don't have a problem with this but I think it makes arguing for God's existence more difficult.
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted January 14, 2019 Popular Post Posted January 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Rivers said: IMO we view our relationship with God as being more important that any ontological understanding of God. I don't have a problem with this but I think it makes arguing for God's existence more difficult. Yes, so instead of arguing about His existence, people actually have to come to know Him personally. 7
pogi Posted January 14, 2019 Posted January 14, 2019 37 minutes ago, Rivers said: We view God as essentially one of us but in a higher plain of existence. IMO we view our relationship with God as being more important that any ontological understanding of God. I don't have a problem with this but I think it makes arguing for God's existence more difficult. How does the view that God is an exalted human make arguing his existence more difficult exactly? 3
carbon dioxide Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 59 minutes ago, Rivers said: How exactly should Latter-day Saints argue for the existence of God? I've become interested in the more philosophical arguments for God. However, many of the philosophical arguments hinge on defining God is an uncreated unmoved mover that is the first of cause of everything. Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, have a much different view of God. We view God as essentially one of us but in a higher plain of existence. IMO we view our relationship with God as being more important that any ontological understanding of God. I don't have a problem with this but I think it makes arguing for God's existence more difficult. Philosophical arguments are basically arguments by man in the perspective of man. The best argument would be for the perspective of God and the best source of that would be revelation from God on the subject. I don't know if I would waste too much time on the philosophical argument as that the position that is likely to be the most flawed.
clarkgoble Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Rivers said: How exactly should Latter-day Saints argue for the existence of God? I've become interested in the more philosophical arguments for God. However, many of the philosophical arguments hinge on defining God is an uncreated unmoved mover that is the first of cause of everything. Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, have a much different view of God. We view God as essentially one of us but in a higher plain of existence. IMO we view our relationship with God as being more important that any ontological understanding of God. I don't have a problem with this but I think it makes arguing for God's existence more difficult. You can't argue for his necessary existence the way traditional arguments go. What matter is you pray, he answers in a fashion you can tell is God. The experience of communicating with God is the only argument that ultimately matters. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Rivers said: How exactly should Latter-day Saints argue for the existence of God? I've become interested in the more philosophical arguments for God. However, many of the philosophical arguments hinge on defining God is an uncreated unmoved mover that is the first of cause of everything. Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, have a much different view of God. We view God as essentially one of us but in a higher plain of existence. IMO we view our relationship with God as being more important that any ontological understanding of God. I don't have a problem with this but I think it makes arguing for God's existence more difficult. The LDS anthropology of God is very humanistic and naturalistic Since astrobiologists maintain that we should expect more advanced sentient beings than us in the universe, it becomes quite easy to argue for the existence of the LDS God (or gods) in the context of finite but "godlike" beings -- such as described by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who said that "It's highly plausible that in the universe there are Godlike creatures." Since he is an atheist, Dawkins is making a naturalistic, scientific argument for the existence of "godlike beings." 1
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted January 15, 2019 Popular Post Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Rivers said: How exactly should Latter-day Saints argue for the existence of God? I've become interested in the more philosophical arguments for God. However, many of the philosophical arguments hinge on defining God is an uncreated unmoved mover that is the first of cause of everything. Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, have a much different view of God. We view God as essentially one of us but in a higher plain of existence. IMO we view our relationship with God as being more important that any ontological understanding of God. I don't have a problem with this but I think it makes arguing for God's existence more difficult. Those classical first cause arguments don't work anyway, they were refuted by Hume hundreds of years ago. https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/themes/ The only people who think that God can be proved to exist philosophically are not philosophers. On the other hand philosophers like William James have shown how belief in God is justified for its results in your life. Their position is similar to Alma 32. Edited January 15, 2019 by mfbukowski 6
teddyaware Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Rivers said: How exactly should Latter-day Saints argue for the existence of God? I've become interested in the more philosophical arguments for God. However, many of the philosophical arguments hinge on defining God is an uncreated unmoved mover that is the first of cause of everything. Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, have a much different view of God. We view God as essentially one of us but in a higher plain of existence. IMO we view our relationship with God as being more important that any ontological understanding of God. I don't have a problem with this but I think it makes arguing for God's existence more difficult. In what I believe is one of the great philosophical chapters in all of scripture, 2 Nephi 2, the prophet Lehi affirms existence can only be predicated and sustained upon the immutable law that affirms the absolute necessity of there being diametric opposition in all things in order for anything at all to exist. This means that if ye could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye, and then continue onward and with that same speed fly (either forever backward or forever forward into time and space) you would never, for all eternity, arrive at a place where the unchangeable, everlasting law of opposition in all things was not in effect. This is why Lehi describes the forever past and forever future of eternity as being one eternal round, rather that something with a clearly defined beginning, with nothing at all existing prior to that beginning. Within Lehi’s one eternal round of existence, without beginning of days nor end of years, the most important thing that exists on the loving, positive, creative side of the framework of opposition in all things is the God of truth and glory; and the leading figure on the hateful, negative, destructive opposite end of the same framework is the leader of the sons of perdition. Lehi goes on to say because all things can only exist by the principle of opposition of all things, there always had to be a God and there never was a time when there was no God. So the Latter-Day Saints agree with our Catholic and Protestant friends that there never was a time when God — the omniscient, omnipotent, redeeming ruler of all things — didn’t exist, and that the throne of God had no beginning and will have no end. And if all of this has been going on forever, in one eternal round, it will be useless to try to find the supposed supreme God who is the first and foremost of all other Gods. There never was a time when there was no God presiding over existence. And so we read... 11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. 12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God. 13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. 2 Nephi 2 Edited January 15, 2019 by teddyaware 3
JLHPROF Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 58 minutes ago, teddyaware said: ,2 Nephi 2, the prophet Lehi affirms existence can only be predicated and sustained upon the immutable law that affirms the absolute necessity of there being diametric opposition in all things in order for anything at all to exist. This means that if ye could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye, and then continue onward and with that same speed fly (either forever backward or forever forward into time and space) you would never, for all eternity, arrive at a place where the unchangeable, everlasting law of opposition in all things was not in effect. Lehi goes on to say because all things can only exist by the principle of opposition of all things, there always had to be a God and there never was a time when there was no God. I believe this principle to be true. The doctrinal ramifications of it are fascinating to ponder. Does God face personal opposition? From whom and to what extent can they influence God? The idea that opposition will cease when we enter Celestial glory- false doctrine? 1
Storm Rider Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I believe this principle to be true. The doctrinal ramifications of it are fascinating to ponder. Does God face personal opposition? From whom and to what extent can they influence God? The idea that opposition will cease when we enter Celestial glory- false doctrine? In response to the bold type above - you are confusing personal opposition versus opposition on a macro level. The temptation to choose evil is eternally beyond choice for God; he is complete and total righteousness. Those children that surround him will reflect that same holiness.
teddyaware Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: I believe this principle to be true. The doctrinal ramifications of it are fascinating to ponder. Does God face personal opposition? From whom and to what extent can they influence God? The idea that opposition will cease when we enter Celestial glory- false doctrine? Of course God faces opposition. That’s what the war in heaven was all about. And because God is filled with perfect love the rebellion and banishment of 1/3 of His children caused him to weep many bitter tears. That same kind of opposition is what caused Him to again cry an ocean of heartbroken tears when, in the presence of Enoch, He so profoundly mourned the wickedness of His earthly children prior to the flood. If you remember, Enoch truly marveled when he witnessed the eternal God of heaven lament and weep in such a human way, shedding tears like the rains of heaven. Enoch seemed to think that because God is from all eternity to all eternity He should have learned by then to not take things so personally. And God’s tears of endless love and devotion stand in stark contrast to Satan’s sadistic glee when the children of men rebel against heaven. And remember how the eternal Jehovah demonstrated both in Gethsemane, when He began to shrink from His Father’s will, and again on Calvary’s cross, when in fear he felt He’d been forsaken of God, that even God Himself can be put in such dire circumstances that even He truly feels He’s at the end of His rope. But there also may be something you haven’t considered. Within the framework of eternal opposition in all things, there will always be those on the dark side of the divide who will rise to great spiritual heights but then fall from grace into perdition; and happily, there will also always be those found on the bright side of the divide who, after rising rto great spiritual heights, never fall but remain magnificently firm, steadfast and true for all eternity. Such is the nature of opposition in all things. And know this, Lehi assures us that as long as things continue to exist there will always be opposition in all things. And that also means as long as things continue to exist we can be fully assured the perfect God of truth and love is reigning in heaven. The only time we will be justified in losing hope is when all things vanish away and cease to exist. For it’s then that we can be sure there is no God. But then we would no longer exist, so how could we know. Edited January 15, 2019 by teddyaware 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) On 1/14/2019 at 2:55 PM, Rivers said: We view God as essentially one of us I would say we are one of Them. Quote Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God. Joseph F. Smith John R. Winder Anthon H. Lund First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, November 1909 Edited January 16, 2019 by Bernard Gui 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 4 hours ago, teddyaware said: ............................ all things can only exist by the principle of opposition of all things, .................. 11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, ..., righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility............................ 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I believe this principle to be true. The doctrinal ramifications of it are fascinating to ponder. Does God face personal opposition? From whom and to what extent can they influence God? The idea that opposition will cease when we enter Celestial glory- false doctrine? Yes. But here and now, is this justification for the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)? Does this explain the necessity of the culture war currently underway? And are we direct participants? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdeFJ4WCqhk (Niall Ferguson on the Intellectual Dark Web and the Culture War, Pt. 1, May 2018) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbswOWDVXLc (Understanding the Intellectual Dark Web, from the Left, Dec 2018) 1
teddyaware Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 9 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I believe this principle to be true. The doctrinal ramifications of it are fascinating to ponder. Does God face personal opposition? From whom and to what extent can they influence God? The idea that opposition will cease when we enter Celestial glory- false doctrine? With regard to God still having to deal with opposition, I find it very interesting that of the few times in the scriptures when humans were allowed to peer into heaven to see what goes on there we see accounts of God and angels weeping because of wickedness prior to the flood (Book of Moses), a war in heaven and its aftermath, when God and angels bitterly weep because the son of the morning and his followers were cast out (Book of Revelation), God sending devastating plagues, fire and destructions to the earth because of wickedness (Book of Revelation), and Isaiah sitting in on a council in heaven when the destruction of Jerusalem is decreed (Isaiah and 1 Nephi). Sure doesn’t sound like Disney Land to me. 1
Amulek Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: On the other hand philosophers like William James have shown how belief in God is justified for its results in your life. Their position is similar to Alma 32. Recommended reading for those would like more on this from one of my favorite LDS philosophers: David Paulsen's The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James. 1
The Nehor Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 Our witness is based on the testimony of apostles and prophets verified by the power of the Holy Ghost. Seeking to replace the basis of our faith with some other support structure is building the house on sand.
Gray Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 As a pantheist, I can offer people absolute empirical certainty about the existence of God, not just philosophical arguments. No one seems particularly impressed, though.
The Nehor Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 17 minutes ago, Gray said: As a pantheist, I can offer people absolute empirical certainty about the existence of God, not just philosophical arguments. No one seems particularly impressed, though. I argued that my pet sugar glider is God and I could this prove God’s existence. I imagine they were equally impressed with your argument.
Gray Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I argued that my pet sugar glider is God and I could this prove God’s existence. I imagine they were equally impressed with your argument. Something like that. However unlike your pet sugar glider, the universe has many of the traditional attributes of God, aside from consciousness.
The Nehor Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 6 minutes ago, Gray said: Something like that. However unlike your pet sugar glider, the universe has many of the traditional attributes of God, aside from consciousness. So does my sugar glider. He demands things that seem to make no sense. He can be quiet for a while and then suddenly urgent insisting certain things be done immediately. Oh, and he and his friends always make me feel better when I am down.
Gray Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: So does my sugar glider. He demands things that seem to make no sense. He can be quiet for a while and then suddenly urgent insisting certain things be done immediately. Oh, and he and his friends always make me feel better when I am down. How many times has your sugar glider walked among us, and we knew him not?
The Nehor Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, Gray said: How many times has your sugar glider walked among us, and we knew him not? I hide him under my coat sometimes when I go out places. 1
CA Steve Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 18 hours ago, Rivers said: How exactly should Latter-day Saints argue for the existence of God? I've become interested in the more philosophical arguments for God. However, many of the philosophical arguments hinge on defining God is an uncreated unmoved mover that is the first of cause of everything. Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, have a much different view of God. We view God as essentially one of us but in a higher plain of existence. IMO we view our relationship with God as being more important that any ontological understanding of God. I don't have a problem with this but I think it makes arguing for God's existence more difficult. This book may interest you. The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion by Sterling McMurrin 1
clarkgoble Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, CA Steve said: This book may interest you. The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion by Sterling McMurrin I'm not sure McMurrin does a terribly good job on typical epistemological approaches within Mormonism. He's basically a positivist coming from the period when positivism was dominant. I'd go so far as to say it's a bad book - but even those who like it typically acknowledge the epistemological issues. The book is much more McMurrin finding elements in major non-continental philosophical positions that he sees as somewhat similar to aspects of Mormon thought. But he really doesn't grapple at all with the diversity in Mormon thought no engages it with any rigor particularly epistemology. His positivism basically means that religion is meaningless and he has a very negative take on Mormon epistemology. The only place he really engages it is in Lectures on Religion and Culture. Since he still was embracing explicit positivism in 1992 in those lectures were given it goes about as expected. (It's more than a little surprising he was still embracing positivism then of course.) A much better book that covers some of the same ground is Givens Wrestling the Angel. I think it too has problems - it's too brief for many of the key elements although McMurrin is even briefer. I'd recommend Blake Ostler, but he's much more focused on broad theology of atonement and so forth - metaphysics - rather than epistemology. He also only really engages with what is a more minority view of an open theist take on Mormon theology that also rejects the traditional reading of the King Follet Discourse. There's surprisingly not really a good epistemological book out there that's even semi-technical. There's lots of books that broadly engage the question, but tend to do it in a populist less rigorous way. i.e. they're primarily devotional. So Givens is the best and it really doesn't engage with epistemological questions at all. (They might get mentioned in passing but never really engaged with) This is rather surprising, to say the least, given the central place truth and knowledge play in Mormon thought not to mention hearing and listening to the spirit. But in quasi-academic books it's had little attention. The closest to a sustained published engagement with epistemology is Brian Birch's "“Faith Seeking Understanding”: Mormon Atheology and the Challenge of Fideism." While I know Mark has come out here explicitly as a fideism, I'm not sure it's a major position. Keith Lane also had "Between the Narrow Gate and Wittgenstein's Hard Way: On Being a Believer and a Wittgensteinian." There are certainly proponents of course. Since Birch is arguing for just such a position he really isn't doing a presentation of the ways Mormons think on the issue. (He deals with the issue in a footnote on page 60 - and it's noticeable that none of the works cited are really philosophical nor done by philosophers except for McMurrin's Religion, Reason and Truth - which has been out of print for decades.) There have been a few other papers such as (then) Dennis Potter's "Restored Epistemology: A Communicative Pluralist Answer to Religious Diversity" or Jennifer Lane's "Embodied Knowledge of God." There's not really been a sustained examination nor an overview. Edited January 15, 2019 by clarkgoble 1
mfbukowski Posted January 15, 2019 Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, CA Steve said: This book may interest you. The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion by Sterling McMurrin Well another thing I disagree with Clark on I guess- I found his approach to be very much like Pragmatism even though McM did not acknowledge that. I especially like the important quote "I was never disillusioned, because I was never illusioned in the first place" (paraphrase) The book is often cited as one attempt at "Mormon Theology" which is thought to be a non-sequitur by most, even myself, to a degree at least. I did not agree with a lot that was said in the book, but overall I think his effort had a positive effect on my intellectual understanding of Mormonism, but I will not debate his classification as a "Positivist", since I have no interest in the taxonomy of philosophers. In that field especially there are "no facts, only interpretations" Edited January 15, 2019 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts