God And Ontology

[Serg]

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.[/quote]

1)The thing here PC, is that we cant say just a bold "he's wrong, he's finite". How exactly do you make your point? How do you even conclude that God HAS to be infinite? In fact, what is infinity? Or better put, why cant God be infinite? Or even better, in WHAT respects is he "infinite"? In terms of substance? In terms of knowledge? In terms of power?

Now, if(as I suppose you do)you mean also in terms of His whole being(substance)(for to say the contrary would limit God's substance and being and would deny Him of absolute infinity in terms of a conceptual body), then the following objection would follow(if you plainly dont believe in monism):

And unless a being is aware of the self and of external objects as different from self, that being cannot grasp that its mental states are representations of something different from itself. Furthermore, if a being cannot make these fundamental distinctions between self and external objects, that being cannot form judgments about objects.

Also:

Kant argues that object/representation discrimination is also a necessary presupposition of self-awareness. A being with higher consciousness must do more than merely recognize or react to objects in the world; it must be able to separate those objects into the one that is the self and the others that are not, it must separate the subjective course of its experience from the objective state of affairs, and it must be able to place itself as an object among the non-self objects.

Also: He(Kant) says, "The consciousness of my own existence is simultaneously a direct consciousness of the existence of other things outside of me." 4

Now we dont dismis this with a plain "no". But with equal philosophic principles. For what is incoherent, is incoherent even if you allude to Scriptures. Then we may also believe anything anyone said of God, yet. you think through a cautious channel of criteria. Why not now also? The third quote I showed, its in itself the core of this objection. if God is not finite, but infinite in every respect in terms of His BEING(substance), then two things appear to be possible:

a) God is everything, for there is no end to God's substance, hence, monism must be true

b ) God is not everything, hence, not infinite in at least that respect,

If b is accepted, then the following objection finds absolute no ground, for mormonism conception of God as a limited Being in space not infinite to Being but with a body, brings down the argument.

2) I'll adress this soon, right now, I got classes! lOL.

[Maureen]

...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".

Now Serg, if you do comprehend the English language than you know that that is not what Dr. T was saying. Your concept of God is different than his, and that is all he was trying to point out. He disagreed with your view, so what.

M.

[Serg]

How could he disagree if he didnt understand??

That's my point. Now the point of disagreeing here is to propose an alternate course of thinking but first explaining WHY reject our view, not just say he disagrees. Did you now that a debate is no monologue M?

[Maureen]

Did you now that a debate is no monologue M?

You mean did I know?

Are you trying to say Serg that Dr. T. was really talking to himself?

M.

[Dr T]

Looks like I have been M.

[Serg]

Dont turn such a beautiful attempt to meet theological discrepancies, M, to the common low rate scholar discussions that most of the time such "ironies of speech"bring.

Now, after all, even you have misspelled words in this very thread, rather, I find it very childish for you(I mean, for a serious debater) to focus on the "attitudes"or "means"of speech instead of the clear discussion that has transpired here, at which, may I recall, neither you sweet heart, nor Dr.T, nor even PC have been able(or even willing?) to ellucidate. My arguments(some) have been set, why is your every response something concerned with my way of writting? If PC understood my last claim concerning Kant and God, then, why dont you? Is he more brilliant(able or willing) than both of you to try serious debate? Or is it just that it shows of your lack of interest(or capacity?) concerning your answers to my objections?

Huh, I guess, after all, it is wowthless to speak to you in this thread, for as I see it, neither of you feel(actually ARE) prepared to face such tasks, and we will end up redundantly speaking of sweet "me".

Regards,

[BenRaines]

To all parties in this thread:

Please keep to topic. Please refrain from personal attacks. If spelling causes you to not understand please ask for clarification.

Thank you all for your consideration.

Ben Raines

[Dr T]

...clear discussion that has transpired here,...

What thread have you been reading, Serg? I've had someone read this thread, to see if I was missing something, and they kept asking, "What is he [you] trying to say?" That is why I brought up the language issue in the first place. It's not that I don't want to have a conversation with you, it's just that has been one sided thus far. I've said the same thing a couple of times but you will not touch it. You then go somewhere else (where-I don't really know) and then claim that we are not stepping up. If I don't post anymore, it's not to duck the topic but I'm tired to chasing rabbit trails and then being accused of not participating.

Respectfully,

Dr. T

[Serg]

For the last time:

In threads, as in common debates, we can write down the arguments of each person side by side, and then consider who has been answeing who's arguments, this, that I'll show you might be considered as the structure of this thread so far, below each username there will appear his arguments, and his responses to my arguments. Clear?? Do I translate? (Further before all this, you still have nbot ansewered me how did PC understand the thread at the point of participating and you didnt...huh...) Here it is:

Intro: Concerning God, Ontology in general christendom has proposed that God existence must be eternal, because such attribute links Him to perfection also. Not only ontological claims must be considered here but also it's derivations. This thread, might include many other attributes...

Dr.T:

1-Etarnal Existence:

-"difficulty... with the above is the idea that an eternal being (God) did not exist eternally"(Why/How?),

Support:

-"If He didn't, He would not be eternal. It's a self defeating statement."(Also, Why/How?)

-"..."

-"Something/someone that was not "always perfect" or "always existent" was not/is not a perfect being" (Why/How?)

-"The perfection breaks down, sir" (Why/How?)

2-Infinitude:

-"there is still the problem of traversing an infinite that is a logical absurdity" (Why/How?)

Suport:

-"Things do not circle back to being God of which it all began (in a true circle)." (Why/How?)

-"..."

-"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). (Why/How?)

3-Finitude

"then it follows that the man that became god (in your belief) was at one time imperfect."(Why/How?)

Support:

- [He]"has not always been perfect" (Why/How?)

-"not a difficult concept to understand," (Why/How?)

-"You are further in error in the idea that the god you worship was just like Jesus." (Why/How?)

Conclusion:

- "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."

Serg:

1-Eternal Existence

"God as an individual not ontologically eternal"(He must not be a neccesary being)(Why/How?),

Support:- we have no reference nor conceptual or physical that relates to such idea (Why/How?)

-"position he holds(that of Godhood) always existed" (Why/How?)

- There must be an Eternal Ruling if not an eternal individual Ruler(in a theist conception of the universe), if by logic we rule the individual out as eternal, then we must keep the Godhood at least in it's place

-"The only reason(PROOF) you rationally got for making "perfection"dependable(or derived through) eternal existence is only your own judgement" (Why/How?)

- "Energy, we know, through science, cannot be created or destroyed, hence, eternal(somehow), is it perfect? No. "

-Concept Vs. Being, "God didnt exist, but that Godhood is eternal. I am saying that though humans not always existed(particularly-each person-of neccesity), humanity(as concept) on the other hand, did", "Eternal Godhead(wich is a state of affairs, not an individual!)"

-"-His essense is eternal(just as ours)"

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

2-Infinitude

-" in order to save God's omni atributes and self-existence you had to renounce to His individual worth",an infinite series of events CAN be traversed

Support:

-"trascendent AND inmanent(a rational contradiction)" (Why/How?)

-Something cannot be equally A and not A at the same time, or A and B at the same time, where B contradicts A.

-"absolute(infinite) omnipotence" to "Maximal Power". Process Theology as a response.

-"Omnipresence and Conciousness" contradictory(as understood by current christendom) (Why/How?)

- [God]"present in all places and in all times'(current omnipresence) "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" (current logic concerning conciousness). "There can be no external objects for an omnipresent God, so he cannot have a mind."

-(*) There is a time t such that, for all n in the past, there is an m before n, but after t.

(Where the variables range over discrete time intervals such as days, years whatever). There is absolutely no contradiction in this, indeed, it is a standard set-theoretical formulation.

3-Finitude:

-"Our understanding of perfection is widely different from yours.", "So being a man(being FINITE) is not a contra-requisit for Godhood"

Support:

-"for if it were, then Jesus couldnt be our God" (Why/How?)

-"I also believe Jesus to have been a man, yet, a perfect God"

- "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."

-"Elohim very well could have been incarnated and acted as a Christ, being mroally perfect during His mortality. "

- "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)."(Current Theosis concept)

-"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."

- "you will still have to make a case positively "

-"He has a body(which He gained through a respective-and past incarnation)" What do you make for such?

- "In what manner is then your God "infinite"?"

Still, I owe you PC arguments, I'll compile them later ;D

Regards,

[Serg]

PC:

1-Eternal Existence:

-"God's nature has not changed, progressed, etc.--He has always been what He is."

Support:

-"of a god who, before our time, was mutable, changeable, and who progressed...these were beliefs that were difficult to fathom." (Why/How?)

-"that the God we now serve is a being who progressed to his current status) is mind-blowing."(Why/How?)

-"..."

2-Infinitude:

-"..." "and I suppose you would argue that your version is compatible with Scripture"

Support:

-"..."

-"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." (Why/How?)

3-Finitude:

-"Such a god does not at all mesh with the God of the Bible"

Support:

-"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." (Why/How?)

- "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." (Why/How?)

This shall be it so far, now, do anyone see how the arguments have been going and who's fault is it? Who is answering who? And with what?!

Also

p.d., the "(Why/How)" that appears after each argument I provided it to make it sound obligatory to he who is giving it to find reasons to do so, if there are, they should follow such "(Why/How)", if not, and what follows next is not connected at all to what I asked "why", then such is the coherence of his arguments.

Is this not understandable Dr.T???????

[Serg]

M?? Dr.T?? PC??

Hum....yup, i thought so.

[Maureen]

M?? Dr.T?? PC??

Hum....yup, i thought so.

Who died and made you great debate king Serg. Some of us have lives, we cannot always be on-line.

My problem with your approach Serg, is that you seem to have these debate expectations.

"It's my thread, you have to play my way!"

The back and forth between you and Dr. T. gave me the impression that you did not like his style of debate. You're coming across that you want other posters to read your opinions and then magically stop how we've come to know God and start seeing him your way. That's not going to work. If you see God as you've described him in this thread, more power to you Serg, but it doesn't work for me, no matter how logical you think your arguments are.

I believe God has always been eternal, perfect, supreme, all powerful, majestic, almighty, holy, etc. He has always existed and will never stop existing. My understanding of God, is that he is the creator of everthing, even time and space. I will never be able to see God the way you see God, so I have nothing to debate with you. We have different beliefs and I don't think either one of us will convince the other. Therefore I have nothing else to say.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Serg appears to be formatting my observations into something of a debate/argumentation format, and is aksing for justification/support. I'll do my best, though my original intent was to communicate the mindset many non-LDS have when they encounter certain LDS teachings.

PC:

1-Eternal Existence:

-"God's nature has not changed, progressed, etc.--He has always been what He is."

Support:

-"of a god who, before our time, was mutable, changeable, and who progressed...these were beliefs that were difficult to fathom." (Why/How?)

Even "armchair" theologians are familiar with the three "omnis" that define God: Omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. This is how we understand that God is, how he was, and how he will always be. When Scripture says, "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever," we simply take that as eternal truth--not an observation that has only been true since "our time" began.

From a logical viewpoint, the idea of finite progressing to infinity is like the person who, with each step moves half-way closer to his goal. He can get real real close, but never arrive. Likewise, you can continually double a finite number, and it will grow to unfathomable greatness--but never inifinity.

-"that the God we now serve is a being who progressed to his current status) is mind-blowing."(Why/How?)

Why--it's a notion that runs counter to all we've been raised to understand. It's almost as if someone told you that the sky is green, not blue--and has always been green. What do you do with that? The theory of God being a human that progressed to perfect deity raises so many questions. BTW "mind-blowing" simply means astounding--not foolish, evil, etc.

-"..." 2-Infinitude: -"..." "and I suppose you would argue that your version is compatible with Scripture"

Support:

-"..."

-"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." (Why/How?)

If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere present, and, as Scripture tells us, He made us, then He can relate to us. Likewise, if he was, before we were, before the universe was, than he simply was. Who's Kant to say that simply by definition, God could not have existed before the universe, as an eternal, perfect being? Sort of like Job ranting against God.

3-Finitude:

-"Such a god does not at all mesh with the God of the Bible"

Support:

-"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." (Why/How?)

A finite being (a god) who progresses to Godhood, who then created us to do likewise, would simply want to mentor us to our glorification. Even though He is greater than us, we're on the same pathway. So, the god becomes a teacher, rather than one whom we would give absolute submission, worship, adoration, etc.

- "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." (Why/How?)

Here, I don't understand the question. Perhaps a comment on any deficiencies, and some followup questions are in order? Otherwise, I gave a thought and an explication.

SERG, I'm not sure if I have helped you, with my responses to your how/why. Frankly, it would be more informative to for you to engage the dialogue, ask questions, offer observations, rather than to turn this into a courtroom scenario, which, by its nature, is advisarial.

[Serg]

M:

Off topic. My ideal was not to place my beliefs above necessarily, just that, even if they(mine) were utterly nonesense, at least, I have given(logical or not) explanations. Others have not. Now, I didnt make the structure of arguments simply to show who is more ahead of logical achivement, but rather for forists like you, to see that you are only SHARING beliefs and not explanations, when, what I wanted in the thread(at least, I PROPSED IT!), was to share not only ideals M, but REASONS. Of course, you find all ground to call me incoherent in writting, also in belief, but offer no explanation. Point dully noted, now, let us move on from opinions and go to understanding.

PC:

I find them very useful your aclarations, now we may proceed to keep on them.

1) Even "armchair" theologians are familiar with the three "omnis" that define God: Omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent

Well PC, of course, also i know them, yet the thing here is not merely knowing them, but also explaining(justifying them). I have offered explanations for some of them that simply make them " not hold" . Now, what are your arguments against mine of Kant other than your understandable disaproval? If it is only that, then I'll take it anyways, but I need to know that such is the only response i'll get out of my argument, so I wont run in circles or thinking you are avoiding it.

2-It's almost as if someone told you that the sky is green, not blue--and has always been green. What do you do with that? The theory of God being a human that progressed to perfect deity raises so many questions. BTW "mind-blowing" simply means astounding--not foolish, evil, etc.

Of course, you were wise to describe such comparison as an " almost", for it is definetely not the same issue. You take thomistic attributions of perfection instead as learned things, as SEEN and tested things. rather, my point is, yes, it may be weird and mindblowing for you to hear contra-positions towards it, but hey, lets reason both! About the questions it raises that God progressed, what are they? Share them.

3-Who's Kant to say that simply by definition, God could not have existed before the universe, as an eternal, perfect being?

Well, for one, he is not merely ' saying" such and such, but also persuasively proving it. Now, I dont care of Kant's points of view if they are just a matter of authoritive speech(as the one you take form aquinas) rather I value his reasons for posting it. What are yours to the contrary? Just theologians say so? What about other theologians? How do you know which follows Scripture when such dosnt explains such things fully? Reason plays a key part. Just as your own vision when it comes to if i tell you the sky has always been green!

4-So, the god becomes a teacher, rather than one whom we would give absolute submission, worship, adoration, etc.

Though I may recall the fact that God has revealed Himself as a supreme TEACHER in the form of Christ, I would just question the premise that in order for God to receive worship He must not share Himself fully with us.

5-Such a god could very well simply be another species

Rather what we contend, is that we are ONE and the same species, that makes mortality for God reasonable and not contradictory.

regards,

P.D.(Maureen, I also have a life, and I am not always connected, but since is of your tase to make such nonesensical fanfare over my incapacity of speech, I just felt self-justified in being happy over discovering(after tracing the argumentative structure) that I am the less likely here to be uttering nonesense.)

[BenRaines]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear earlier. I will try one more time nicely.

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. If I see any others I will edit as I feel necessary.

Enjoy your discussion and expressing your beliefs but stop the personal attacks.

I hope that is clear to all.

Ben Raines

[Serg]

Ben,

I just adequately answered a personal inquiry(missplaced comment?) of M and of Dr.T.

The line between personal and nonpersonal is way too thin to make clear.

You may, anyways, as well, as our moderator edit as you find just.

Regards,