God And Ontology

[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). '[/b]

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. [/b]

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[/b]

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.[/b]

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...[/b]

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..[/b]

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,
[/b]

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.