God And Ontology

[Serg]

By far, Thomas Aquinas has been the very first to assert of the ontological status of the Christian God. Is his prerogative, that(deriving it from aristotle's first Motor), for every effect there must de facto be a cause. Hence, as the world in religion(most religious concepts) is viewed as an effect(a sublime one indeed), therefore a Cause must be it's author. Now, the concept of how the world can be viewed as a great effect(designed or not is another story) is as old as Plato, and it's best contestant was Hume by far, but this is another topic. Where I go. Given the fact that this is an effect(designed according to theism), we may very well trace it's origins along a chain of events, but, says Aquinas, we must stop at some point where we would have to encounter a first Motor, an unmoved Mover, th ekey to the chain effect.

Thus, if we portray a first Cause to the chain, such Cause would have to be eternal, for if it were not, we would then have to move on to th enext Cause available(the cause of the cause, and so on). Now, we may endlessly go through that chain, or probabilisticly stop it at some point and recognize teh first Cause's eternal existance. Now, as to ontology. Ontology deals with whether some given X exists contingently or necessarily. An example might be that my hair color is accidental(thus contingent, for it could have very well be of another color). Now, my nature(of character) is fundamental to me(that is also accidental) but it defines me well, instead of a changing hair color. Now God must be the ultimate unalterable Cause, necessary to existance.

Most Christians understand this quality of God to be necessary to Him. They say that God as an individual must have eternally existed. So there could'nt be any time, where God(the one we know of at least) was not God. Or even further(even if we admit to many Gods) there couldnt be a time with no Gods. We mormons see it rather differently. Although it varies from mormon to mormon, there are few theories of thought in Mormon scholars and laymen that differ to this:

1) the consequential: this is the view that agrees with most christians, that God as an individual always existed no matter what. Only few mormons believe this.

2) the far reaching: this helds that individuals(all intelligent ones) have always existed with equal ontological status, both God and men. There are two of this one, a) that there is no children or parents in heaven but all an eternal number of intelligences(limited), b ) that all exist from eternities past, BUT, there is children and parents(some how)

3) the institutional: this holds th e1st part of number 2, but adds that the status of God, is what it is eternal, God as an institution has ontological status. Not the individuals, for all individuals(even from eternities past) are contingent in some sense, they existed(in terms of their essenses-matter) eternally, but were not eternal individuals. Hence they were beggoten, they grew up, they learned, etc...

Based on this, mormons often postulate that there was a time when God(be it Elohim, OR Jehova, OR the HG, OR any Other(s),etc...) was NOT God, this is, did not HAVE or ocupate the God Office. This is not to say that there was a time when there was NO GOD, but a time when ALL Gods(or any God) was NOT particularly a God. This is to say the same of humans but with an origin difference. There was a time when Dr.T was NOT a human(did not EXIST as to earthly dimension is predicable-did not occupy that status), also a tiem when ANY human being in the whole history was NOT a human being(prior to being such). But that is not to say that there was a time where there were NO human beings at all(at least, within the history were humans as a race existed, but Plato as a particular, could have not exsited at all). Now apply this to God, but change the origin. We may logically say to my analogy that there was a time indeed when NO human beings existed(I am talking of this earth). Now, of course that is so. But change that, and give Godhood an ontological status, then you have, that although there was a time when Elohim was not a God(or God), there has always somone else been a God(s). There has been no time(within eternity) when there was no Ruling Entity. Just that there was a time when every single one of them(in different moments!) were not necessarily respective God(s).

Now, I am only showing this, I believe in it, but a bit differently, I just wanted to see what do others say on this, on how it conflicts with "standard" theism. Or how other mormons view Godhood.

Regards,

[Serg]

Guess not everybody is into such reflexive gibberish as me LOL

[Tsuzuki]

What's the point of ontology, again? Didn't it coexists with such ideas as primal atoms? We already smashed the later, yet ontology still remains. Why?

[prisonchaplain]

My understanding is that the real distinction is not in God's eternal existence, but our own. LDS do believe God existed eternally--as have we all.

On the other hand, most other Christians believe that humans began at creation--that there was no premortal existence. Thus, the distinction between God and man is far greater. Furthermore, God's nature has not changed, progressed, etc.--He has always been what He is.

"Ontology," if I'm not mistaken, relates more to the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, than to God's general character.

[Dr T]

Hello Serg,

I can agree with your idea that we (humans) did not exist at one point in time. The difficulty that I have with the above is the idea that an eternal being (God) did not exist eternally. If He didn't, He would not be eternal. It's a self defeating statement. If, however, as you propose, it was only a position and it was not occupied by any God (for however long) then we must also concede that there was never an "eternal being that was God." And thus, you worship an imperfect being. Something/someone that was not "always perfect" or "always existent" was not/is not a perfect being. The perfection breaks down, sir. As we've talked about, there is still the problem of traversing an infinite that is a logical absurdity. Someone (forgive me for not remembering who) tries to solve this by saying that it is circular. I can't make this fit logically. Things do not circle back to being God of which it all began (in a true circle).

Dr. T

[BenRaines]

OK, what came first now? The chicken or the egg?

Serg, did you get your mission call yet?

Ben Raines

[CrimsonKairos]

The chicken nor the egg came first. It was the rooster! Can't have an egg without a chicken AND a rooster.

[prisonchaplain]

OK, what came first now? The chicken or the egg?

Ben Raines

The chicken. God created people and animals, not embryos.

[CrimsonKairos]

Actually I changed my mind. It wasn't the chicken, rooster or egg that came first. It was the test-tube. God inserted the chicken embryo into the test-tube and nurtured it until fully developed. Hahahaha, j/k.

[Dr T]

Maybe the first chicken had something to do with chicken stem cell research? :)

[Serg]

PC:

We mormons(at least some-if not all), dont accept that God as an individual, a person who thinks, existed through all eternity, we just think that the position he holds(hat of God) always existed, and always was filled by individuals. We believe that the essenses of individuals(that of God or humans) is eternal(for matter is). '

Dr.T:

No, we dont have to worship an individual who has always existed, just that has been the Source of our being, the Source of our salvation, etc... It is rather distinctive that we mormons have developed a theology of finiteness(in God) that has enabled us to understand the phenomenon of Christ rationally and without "mistery". There is no need for us to worship God, that He had to be eternally existent, just as He doesnt have to be literally all powerfull, or literally all present, for at least, what is it to believe in a God with a body, if not to believe truly that His parts are prior than Himself? Is logic. Now the issue of the body many here have very well accepted, is a matter of time until they accept their God's contingent existence. But that is nothing bad at all. Who esteblished eternal existence as God's uniqueness from us? Oh, Plato. Sorry. Not a prophet or an infalliable logician. LOL.

[Dr T]

OK, Serg. My point was in that sense, the god you worship was not always perfect-thus an imperfect being. That's all I was saying. That's why I'm have a problem with what you propose as a god.

[Serg]

Why is it an imperfection to not exist eternally? Energy, we know, through science, cannot be created or destroyed, hence, eternal(somehow), is it perfect? No. The only reason(PROOF) you rationally got for making "perfection"dependable(or derived through) eternal existence is only your own judgement and that of Greeks, that, of course I already knew. I am asking you for ontological or epistemological reasons. This topic ought not to be an "I say-you say" but an exposition of ontology(theological) followed by critique. Now, how do you base your vision of God rationally? Look at my proposal, I am not saying that God didnt exist, but that Godhood is eternal. I am saying that though humans not always existed(particularly-each person-of neccesity), humanity on the other hand, did(within the context of historical population of course, ).

[Dr T]

Hello Serg,

Maybe you can understand what I'm saying with "your god was not always perfect" by asking you a couple of questions.

1. You believe that God was once a man. Is that correct?

2. Do you believe in human perfection upon this Earth (apart from Jesus)?

If you say "true" to number one and two above, then it follows that the man that became god (in your belief) was at one time imperfect. It is your belief that I have difficulty with-my own perception of what a God must be. I hope that helps you understand what I was trying to say.

Thank you,

Dr. T

[Serg]

Rather, your objections brings you yourself to the core of the incoherent claim you made.

1) Yes I believe that a particular member of the Eternal Godhead(wich is a state of affairs, not an individual!) was a man. I also believe Jesus to have been a man, yet, a perfect God thereafter. So being a man(being FINITE) is not a contra-requisit for Godhood(for if it were, then Jesus couldnt be our God). Now, your question(#2) presuposes that if my particular member of the Godhead(i.e.Elohim, the father) was once a man, he had to be not a Christ, but a mere man. Now, that is an asuumption. There are escapes for that. Elohim very well could have been incarnated and acted as a Christ, being mroally perfect during His mortality. Now, even if it were otherwise, and He was on th ebuch of "saved"people(hence, once sinful), He yet could have been a God. For even now, we mormons hold that WE(being sinful!) will succeed as to participate in God's grace and having equal Godhood with Him. Now, if rationally there is no problem with me saying that I could be a God, then there is no problem at all for me to even think it remotely that our Current God was once a such(be it a Christ or a sinner).

Your claim, in order to gain coherence(or relevance), has to meet my criteria. You may do very well first, in postulate a thesis concerning the impossibility(or irrationality) of me becoming a God, in order to prove your claim.

Even then, the quetion of this thread goes beyond that. For after you have proven such an objection to human theosis, you will still have to make a case positively for Necessary Theological Ontology, a thing, that, to say the least, you have not been able to make.

You have TRIED to make your case negatively(this is, bringing down MY thesis-though not succeeded), but I repeat, even when you do this you have to make your case positively(this is, PROOVING logically your thesis). It would help you in your quest, to look for J.P.Moreland's work, Plantinga's, Morris's, Craig's, etc...all defending your thesis(I assume, for in fact, you have presented none).

Regards,

[Dr T]

Sir,

I mean this with all sincerity and do not mean it (at all) as a put down to you. I'm wondering if our language barriers are causing you difficulty in understanding what I am saying. My assertion comes directly from your belief that mankind is sinful (not perfect). Once they are exalted to godhood, that does not remove the fact that they were at one point "not perfect." That is my argument. You worship and being that has not always been perfect. It's not a difficult concept to understand, Serg. You keep trying to go on tangents that do not directly address what I've said based on what you believe.

It might be that I am mistaken in what you are saying. Let me back up and see if I heard you correctly. Do you not believe that the god you worship was, at one point, not perfect? I thought you would say "That is correct. He was a man like me." If you are saying however, that to be god, in your beliefs, "there is no reason for him (god) to have been a man" then I apologize for my error. My question then would be “what did that being progress from then?” I thought it was man that became god. Is that not what you believe? You are further in error in the idea that the god you worship was just like Jesus. It looks like you are saying that Jesus was once a man and then became a god but you might be arguing that Jesus did just that. In any case, that is not what I am saying here. Look at John 1:1. my brief paraphrase: Jesus was the word and the word was God. He did not have to work his way through progression/exaltation, sir. Based on that verse-He was God (eternally). This topic is a whole different thread but I only point it out because of your confusion of the Father being like Jesus and requiring a life on an Earth before attaining godhood. Jesus was eternally God and eternally existent (according to scripture). Please explain to me how worshiping a being that was not always perfect is not worshiping an imperfect being. Again, that is not a hard thing to comprehend, Serg.

Let me know if you are still having problems with the fundamental understanding of basic logic.

Thank you,

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

PC: We mormons(at least some-if not all), dont accept that God as an individual, a person who thinks, existed through all eternity, we just think that the position he holds(hat of God) always existed, and always was filled by individuals. We believe that the essenses of individuals(that of God or humans) is eternal(for matter is). '

I just had this discussion with a live Mormon, the other day. She was telling me how she grew up in Utah, was raised on these beliefs, and never encountered anyone who thought differently until recently. I responded that, for non-LDS, the whole ide of premortal existence, and of a god who, before our time, was mutable, changeable, and who progressed...these were beliefs that were difficult to fathom.

This discussion is not one that can be resolved with a pro/con debate style presentation. The worldviews are hugely different--and they are generally assumed truths. To suddenly encounter the differing view (whether, for the LDS, the belief that we are finite beings, having absolutely begun at conception, or for the rest of us, that our essence is immortal, and that the God we now serve is a being who progressed to his current status) is mind-blowing.

Dr.T: No, we dont have to worship an individual who has always existed, just that has been the Source of our being, the Source of our salvation, etc... It is rather distinctive that we mormons have developed a theology of finiteness(in God) that has enabled us to understand the phenomenon of Christ rationally and without "mistery". There is no need for us to worship God, that He had to be eternally existent, just as He doesnt have to be literally all powerfull, or literally all present, for at least, what is it to believe in a God with a body, if not to believe truly that His parts are prior than Himself? Is logic. Now the issue of the body many here have very well accepted, is a matter of time until they accept their God's contingent existence. But that is nothing bad at all. Who esteblished eternal existence as God's uniqueness from us? Oh, Plato. Sorry. Not a prophet or an infalliable logician. LOL.

Dr. T's response to this post will demonstrate just how amazing this is for non-LDS. The belief that 'God' could have become what is, and have at one point been merely what we are, is almost unfathomable. Again, these are truly enormous differences in worldview--differences most of us probably assumed, without having to contemplate.

[Serg]

Dr.T:

Why recurr to the "language barrier"? I understood perfectly what you said. And I responded as another fluently speaking american would have. I told you clearly

1) We hold Elohim to have been a man once

-could have been a sinful man

-could have been a Saviour to his world(hence, morally perfect and never sinful though a man)

2) Has not always existed as an individual

-His essense is eternal(just as ours)

-the Godhood He enjoys has always been eternal

3) Godly Attributes

-He at one point in infinite time came to exist(as an rational individual)

-He has a body(which He gained through a respective-and past incarnation)

4)Now, to this you say "do you realize you worship an unperfect being?"

-because he is not eternal

-because he became a man

5) Now, how does it make Him any less perfect to have come to exist at some point in infinite past?

What is entitled by "perfection"in God?

- according to greek philosophy(some of it, not all of course),

- a perfect being cannot not exist, hence, could not come to exist at some point in infinite past.

-even to speak of infinite past is"incoherent"for an infinite number of events cannot be traversed, thus, if we are at present time we have traversed a finite number of events, an infinite number of past events could not be remembered, etc..

-thus, if there was no infinite time, nor a first Cause, your god is unreasonably superticious.

6) Response: There is no rational necessity for abscribing perfection to a being, to include a "necessary existence"in such.

- the notion of a being that "cannot not exist"is itself incoherent,

- the notion of perfection as included in your prerrogative(Aquinas') is not coherent itself

-in any case, though you may feel that you worship a better idea of God because such has always existed, indeed, in protestant theology(not all, thank God there's the openness theology) in order to save God's omni atributes and self-existence you had to renounce to His individual worth, He cannot be held as a personal and emotional God, if also held as self-sufficient, omnipotent, unchangable, inmutable, impassible, trascendent AND inmanent(a rational contradiction), etc...

7) Thus, though my contention may seem awkard, philosophically speaking(by the way, working BETTER logics here), is more stable than current theism.

is this not enough Dr.T? Or is it now more of dubious "language misunderstandings"?

Prisonchaplain:

This is a very good proyect for debate, and it doesnt matter that it involves "widely different worldviews". If such a thing made a debate(more than difficult) worthless- or imposible, then the very common debates concerning the very idea of God(not just one of it's ramifications as proposed here), should be plainly taken as a loss of time. Yet such profound debates help us so much that it should be taken as hipocritical to even consider them "not one that can be resolved". LOL.

regards,

[Dr T]

Hello Sir,

Why recurr to the "language barrier"? bold mine

for this exact reason Serg. What are you trying to say here?

-thus, if there was no infinite time, nor a first Cause, your god is unreasonably superticious.

Again, what? The whole concept of the uncaused Cause is the creator of time. What do you mean by "superticious"? Is that "superstitious"? There is a language barrier Serg. Again, I'm not trying to put you down. In fact I see it as a compliment, to a certain extent. I was always taught, "Don't make fun of people with an accent-those people are the ones that can speak at least two languages!" :)

in any case, though you may feel that you worship a better idea of God because such has always existed, indeed, in protestant theology(not all, thank God there's the openness theology) in order to save God's omni atributes and self-existence you had to renounce to His individual worth, He cannot be held as a personal and emotional God, if also held as self-sufficient, omnipotent, unchangable, inmutable, impassible, trascendent AND inmanent(a rational contradiction), etc...

Why? Because you are not comfortable with that idea?

You say, "working BETTER logics" yet still think

that even to speak of infinite past is"incoherent"for an infinite number of events cannot be traversed, thus, if we are at present time we have traversed a finite number of events, an infinite number of past events could not be remembered, etc..

is possible? That statement is correct. Finite events can lead to today-not a problem. When the problem comes is an INFINITE being traversed (like the line of God's that you subscribe to). It is not "working better logics" as you say. That would be one of my contentions.

Finally, again, if god was once a man, and not god, then he was imperfect. Being imperfect means flawed. The god you believe in was at one point, that. That's all I'm trying to say, sir.

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

Prisonchaplain:

This is a very good proyect for debate, and it doesnt matter that it involves "widely different worldviews". If such a thing made a debate(more than difficult) worthless- or imposible, then the very common debates concerning the very idea of God(not just one of it's ramifications as proposed here), should be plainly taken as a loss of time. Yet such profound debates help us so much that it should be taken as hipocritical to even consider them "not one that can be resolved". LOL.

regards,

I guess I can blame my own communications skills for your response, Serg. What I meant to say was that these 'big issues' are not ones that adherents will easily be convinced to change on, one way or another, without serious contemplation--probably requiring a good length of time.

I just can't imagine a cradle-Mormon hearing a 15-minute presentation on humanity's mortality, and on this unfathomably transcendent God, who was never like us, and saying, "Oh. Why didn't my parents explain it to me like that? It's so clear, now. Thank you, Mr. Evangelical. "

Likewise, the life-long evangelical is not likely, after the first missionary talk, going to say, "Wow! That's cool. We've always existed? God was once just a man, like me? I'm sure glad you explained it to me, when do I get baptized?" In fact, my guess is premortality and God's one-time mutability would not come up in the first presentation.

ON the other hand, Serg, you are right that the 'big issues' are most worthy topics for dialogue and even respectful debate.

[Serg]

Hello Sir,

Why recurr to the "language barrier"? bold mine

for this exact reason Serg. What are you trying to say here?

-thus, if there was no infinite time, nor a first Cause, your god is unreasonably superticious.

Again, what? The whole concept of the uncaused Cause is the creator of time. What do you mean by "superticious"? Is that "superstitious"? There is a language barrier Serg. Again, I'm not trying to put you down. In fact I see it as a compliment, to a certain extent. I was always taught, "Don't make fun of people with an accent-those people are the ones that can speak at least two languages!" :)

in any case, though you may feel that you worship a better idea of God because such has always existed, indeed, in protestant theology(not all, thank God there's the openness theology) in order to save God's omni atributes and self-existence you had to renounce to His individual worth, He cannot be held as a personal and emotional God, if also held as self-sufficient, omnipotent, unchangable, inmutable, impassible, trascendent AND inmanent(a rational contradiction), etc...

Why? Because you are not comfortable with that idea?

You say, "working BETTER logics" yet still think

that even to speak of infinite past is"incoherent"for an infinite number of events cannot be traversed, thus, if we are at present time we have traversed a finite number of events, an infinite number of past events could not be remembered, etc..

is possible? That statement is correct. Finite events can lead to today-not a problem. When the problem comes is an INFINITE being traversed (like the line of God's that you subscribe to). It is not "working better logics" as you say. That would be one of my contentions.

Finally, again, if god was once a man, and not god, then he was imperfect. Being imperfect means flawed. The god you believe in was at one point, that. That's all I'm trying to say, sir.

Dr. T

If you watch closely the thought structure I proposed to summerize our conversation so far, when I spoke of how incoherent infinite time is I meant it as if YOU said so, for it is indeed one of your contentions against the "finity" of MY God. just the same with others reactions. LOL.

By teh way, PC:

do you understand my last post?

[Dr T]

I hope he does because you lost me again.

[prisonchaplain]

Serg, I got the gist of it. As Dr. T mentioned, and your restated correctly, most non-LDS do indeed understand perfection--especially vis a vis an All-knowing, All-powerful, omni-presence God--to be unattainable. Either God has eternally been God, or else He is but a god--wonderful, but not perfect.

You seem to propose a different definition of perfection, and I suppose you would argue that your version is compatible with Scripture--including the revelations of the LDS prophets.

This discussion forces us to challenge basic assumptions upon which we've built our theologies. You dare to ask "Why do you say so?" to beliefs we thought went without saying.

[Serg]

Of course PC;

Our understanding of perfection is widely different from yours. In fact, though some mormons through history have tried to mantain that we worship the same God, and they try to correlate such notions of perfection with our own perceptions, they boldly get it wrong. Our notion of God is better defined, by two new notions in christian philosophy, Process theology, and Openness Theology, both state that the idea of God, HAS to put away thoso incoherent notions of perfection in order to survive even as a plausible explanation for our religious interest. Openness theology is more into protestant enviroment, and it proposes a new understanding of God emotions and dealings with His creature, hence, the main "obsolete" attribute it attacks is impassibility.

Process theology on the other hand, chalenges "absolute" conceptions in God, wich also deals with perfection. What is apropiate perfection? Etc... It transforms our whole theology into a coherent realistic one. Does God have ALL power literally? No. He just has ALL the power He can have, and is more powerful than any other creatures of Him, but that doesnt mean that His power is limitless, we dont need that! Just that whatever amount He's got, its MORE than anyone else's! Hence, we turn "absolute(infinite) omnipotence" to "Maximal Power". This way, a more realistic one, we avoid all the contradictions that arise from a current one.

But all these new notions in philosophy of God, are old to mormonism! Joseph Smith already gave us such notions of God, a progressing being, a concept of "becoming better than being", etc...

Now I already showed some of our particular explanations concerning God's attributes, now, what specifically is your objection? I am not asking for Dr.T's common "No Serg, I dont get you, and even if I do, its wrong". I want specific difficulties that seem ilogical within our view. I have(or could further yet) tell you of some objections concerning current theism.

just to start, I 'll give you one and you will answer it and then if you choose you'll give me one two.

1) Why God Cannot Think: Kant, Omnipresence, and Consciousness

Matt McCormick

"It has been argued that God is omnipresent, that is, present in all places and in all times. Omnipresence is also implied by God's knowledge, power, and perfection. A Kantian argument shows that in order to be self-aware, apply concepts, and form judgments, in short, to have a mind, there must be objects that are external to a being that it can become aware of and grasp itself in relationship to. There can be no external objects for an omnipresent God, so he cannot have a mind."

This one is a very good one indeed. Though it could be avoided by common apologists by redefining "omnipresence", yet, they would encounter(as often do) another problem, THAT of SCRIPTURE testimony that God is omnipresent. The problem here is the "how" , now, when most apologists try to adapt it to avoid objections, they either fall into illogical premises or into mormonism's notion of God's omnipresence, a thing which ultimately they abhore, LOL.

Regards,

[prisonchaplain]

Now I already showed some of our particular explanations concerning God's attributes, now, what specifically is your objection? I am not asking for Dr.T's common "No Serg, I dont get you, and even if I do, its wrong". I want specific difficulties that seem ilogical within our view. I have(or could further yet) tell you of some objections concerning current theism.

just to start, I 'll give you one and you will answer it and then if you choose you'll give me one two.

1) Why God Cannot Think: Kant, Omnipresence, and Consciousness

Matt McCormick

"It has been argued that God is omnipresent, that is, present in all places and in all times. Omnipresence is also implied by God's knowledge, power, and perfection. A Kantian argument shows that in order to be self-aware, apply concepts, and form judgments, in short, to have a mind, there must be objects that are external to a being that it can become aware of and grasp itself in relationship to. There can be no external objects for an omnipresent God, so he cannot have a mind."

Regards,

I would simply suggest that Kant's argument is from the perspective of a finite being. An infinite being would not be bound by the requirement to have something external to relate to.

As to the struggles I would have with a god that was not omnipresent/powerful/niscient: Such a god could very well simply be another species. Smarter, more evolved, perhaps even a species that had created us. Nevertheless, a species. If so, just as we eventually become autonomous from our parents (though always related), we would eventually become autonomous from such a god. We would not worship him, we'd simply learn from him, and grow in our own ways.

Such a god does not at all mesh with the God of the Bible, imho. Especially, considering the exactness with which God demanded compliance in worship. The God I see in Scriptures is a jealous God, worthy of total submission, and worship. A finite god who is mutable, and who has grown to become what he is would not require such total obeisance, imho. But the eternal 3-omnis God could rightfully expect such.