God And Ontology

[Serg]

Hello Sir,

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

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!"

Why? Because you are not comfortable with that idea?

You say, "working BETTER logics" yet still think

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
[/b]

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,
[/b]

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.

[Serg]

[quote]

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".[/b]

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?[/b]

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.