Reply to Aquinas's disproof of Mormonism

[_Sethbag]

I don't think the notion that Elohim is the greatest being that it would even be possible to imagine, is in fact part of LDS theology. Elohim is God to the LDS, but that Godness does not imply that absolute superiority in every conceivable attribute that apparently is taken for granted in other theologies. That Godness implies an existence in the Celestial Kingdom, with infinite expansion of his family, and great glory and a bunch of other things, but nowhere is it ever stated in LDS theology, that I can recall, that God is the bestest of the best in all possible (positive) attributes or characteristics.

This is one of the reasons why arguing Thomas Aquinas with a Mormon is going to be fruitless. Aquinas would be understood by faithful Mormons not to have a correct understanding of the nature of God, therefor his arguments which are based on these attributes, are going to be powerless. And how could Aquinas have understood the true nature of God, when Joseph Smith hadn't restored that knowledge yet? See where I'm going here?

[_cksalmon]

See where I'm going here?

Yeah, sure. But I think that disconnect is emblematic of the logical lack in LDS theology. That LDS don't believe in an actual being greater than which none can be imagined says more about LDS theology than it does about commonsensical theology, per se. Agree with it, or disagree, as one sees fit.

I don't expect LDS to be logical at this point. They can't be. They believe in an infinite regress of "infinite" beings, the first of which in the chain is just as "infinite" as the latest (Elohim?). Only redefined terms (e.g., "infinite," "eternal," and "ultimate") can be employed to deal with this very basic logical conundrum.

So, yes, I do take your point, Seth. My point is simply that LDS theology is woefully underequipped to deal with a commonsensical notion of deity—i.e., a being greater than which none can be conceived. The problem, I think, lies in thinking that man and god exist along a continuous spectrum. We've all got the same DNA, in other words. There is no fundamental disconnect between Mormon deity and Mormon humanity. That's just not a tenable theological position to hold.

It is rather Greek, though, in a very traditional sense.

And they say Christianity was corrupted by Greek philosophy. Perhaps. But no Christian argues that deity came to earth and had connubial relations with a human. That's straight outta Compton, so to speak. Ironic, that.

Do you see where I'm going here?

Best.

CKS

[_Sethbag]

I love your posts, CKSalmon, but I'm going to have to call you out on this one.

How is the theology of a Supreme Being who is greater in all positive attributes than any other possibly imaginable being, the "commonsense" belief?

What being was the most supreme in Greek mythology? Norse? Chinese? You must admit that the concept of monotheism and a "greatest possible being" is only a couple thousand years old, give or take, out of the over a hundred thousand years of homo sapiens belief, as far as we can tell?

I would propose that this belief is only common sense to you because it's what you already believe, and what you're used to.

[_asbestosman]

What being was the most supreme in Greek mythology?

Zeus? Then again there was something about the Titans?

Norse?

Wasn't it Odin?

I would propose that this belief is only common sense to you because it's what you already believe, and what you're used to.

I agree.

[_asbestosman]

there is only an infinite regress of beings the first of which (already a non-sequitur in LDS theology) is greater than all the others. But, then the first (of an infinite series of gods [again, an illogical conundrum]) is actually God. But then, the first god does not exist in Mormonism. There is only an infinite regress with no starting point. The foundational premise of Mormon polytheism is logically flawed.

Not everything needs a beginning. When did God's existance begin?
It may be counter-intuitive, but then again so is Hilbert's paradox of the grand hotel.

Also, I do not believe that earlier gods are necessarily greater than latter gods. Since each relies on an infinity of Gods preceeding him, each is in that sense equal. It's true that we depend on our Heavenly Father to help us become like Him, but then (assuming this is the case) He could have depended on an infinite chain before Him with no one person to credit as starting it all. Therefore we could be equals and have all that He has--thanks to His love and mercy.

I think Blake Ostler could do a better job with the theology stuff than I can.

[_Sethbag]

It may be turtles all the way down, but there's no reason to suppose that the turtles also get bigger the further down you look. They could all be the same size!

[_cksalmon]

I love your posts, CKSalmon, but I'm going to have to call you out on this one.

How is the theology of a Supreme Being who is greater in all positive attributes than any other possibly imaginable being, the "commonsense" belief?

What being was the most supreme in Greek mythology? Norse? Chinese? You must admit that the concept of monotheism and a "greatest possible being" is only a couple thousand years old, give or take, out of the over a hundred thousand years of homo sapiens belief, as far as we can tell?

I would propose that this belief is only common sense to you because it's what you already believe, and what you're used to.

Well, I should just say that, if Sethbag is posting, I'm a'readin'.

Perhaps "commensensical" is too narrow a term. I'll go you on better: I'd say that the notion of a greatest possible being is only five or six hundred years old. Rather than a couple thousand.

I still believe it is an astute observation that cannot be accounted for under the LDS Law of Eternal Progression.

Its relatively late date doesn't discount its incisive nature, in my opinion.

I don't think our most astute theological observations must necessarily be mirrored in cave paintings from such-and-when. Pick your date.

Frankly, I think it does make sense, if one is to predicate deity at all, that the being of which such is predicated must be superior in all relevant aspects. That would mean that such a being must be logically, chronologically, and functionally prior to any other hypothesized being. LDS theology draws a blank in this regard, I think.

Best.

CKS

[_asbestosman]

I don't think our most astute theological observations must necessarily be mirrored in cave paintings from such-and-when. Pick your date.

I agree.

Frankly, I think it does make sense, if one is to predicate deity at all, that the being of which such is predicated must be superior in all relevant aspects. That would mean that such a being must be logically, chronologically, and functionally prior to any other hypothesized being. LDS theology draws a blank in this regard, I think.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think that disagreement stems from what each of us considers to be the relevant aspects of God's superiority. I don't think chronological or functional order are such aspects. What if the functional order loops back on itself to create a cycle that connects at a Point at Infinity (where parallel lines intersect)?

(and I do enjoy reading and contemplating your contributions as well)

[_moksha]

Norse?

Wasn't it Odin?

Ooo, your thaying that makth me really thor!

[_Aquinas]

Sorry I've been taking so long Asbestos, I wanted to give your arguments due consideration and I have only had time here and there to sit down and think it out. I should be posting a response tonight though.