The Origin and Literal Fatherhood of God

[_harmony]

On what basis do you claim to know that "God, the Person,[your] Heavenly Father" has flesh and bones, was once mortal and is now immortal?

The above post does not make an argument based in evidence, it merely makes a baseless claim--a testimony of sorts. What is the evidence of this claim?

I repeat: Good grief. Could you two simply argue the premise of the thread, and not turn every thread you participate on into you holding forth about the impossibility of determining if God exists? Don't you get it? We don't care if you think God doesn't exist. We do. Our basic cognitions start there. Yours don't. Big deal. We know that. So either discuss the premise of the thread as presented or don't get into the discussion.

In case you didn't get it from the OP, this thread is about the King Follett discourse. So comments about the existence or nonexistence of God are off topic. Loran actually posted a thread worth discussing, so take your off topic comments somewhere else, please!

[_amantha]

Harmony said:

Good grief. Could you two simply argue the premise of the thread, and not turn every thread you participate on into you holding forth about the impossibility of determining if God exists? Don't you get it? We don't care if you think God doesn't exist. We do. Our basic cognitions start there. Yours don't. Big deal. We know that. So either discuss the premise of the thread as presented or don't get into the discussion.

In case you didn't get it from the OP, this thread is about the King Follett discourse. So comments about the existence or nonexistence of God are off topic. Loran actually posted a thread worth discussing, so take your off topic comments somewhere else, please!

My post does not discuss the existence of god. My post discusses the reliability of the spiritual witness which is directly related to faith based definitions of god including those offered up by the King Follett discourse. If one cannot reliably define god due to the inherent infallibility of the human creature, one cannot claim to be an authority on god--including Joseph Smith.

[_harmony]

My post does not discuss the existence of god. My post discusses the reliability of the spiritual witness which is directly related to faith based definitions of god including those offered up by the King Follett discourse. If one cannot reliably define god due to the inherent infallibility of the human creature, one cannot claim to be an authority on god--including Joseph Smith.

Once more, amantha: the topic of this thread is NOT the reliability of spiritual witness. If you want to talk about the reliability of spiritual witness, start your own thread about that topic. Quit trying to usurp Loran's thread. This thread is about man's ability to eternally progress, not the reliability of spiritual witness.

This is the Celestial forum. Either stay on topic or get the heck off the thread!

Good grief.

[_Gadianton]

Cog isn't wrong to have a speculative thread. The philosophical part of philosophical discussions are so precisely for the fact that empirical evidence (or spiritual witnesses) can't answer the questions. But it would seem as if, rather than presenting us with a "philosophical" thread, Cog has simply outlined Mormon God mythology. Perhaps he can articulate for us why an infinite regress of God's is a great solution to the problem of origins, being, or whatever, when virtually every other philosopher would see an infinite regress as symptomatic of a poor answer to a question or a frustrating aspect of metaphysics or language that's not easy to shake, rather than something to write home about as an astounding solution to a problem.

[Guest]

God, whether capitalized or not, is a word. What that word means is subject to vast degrees of interpretation. Many people would have us believe that not only do they know what the word god means, but that they also know what this god wants. The people who make this claim ultimately default to the wholly empirical position that their subjective witness is the standard by which this the definition of god can be known as can the personal will of this being.

Did you just here say that the subjective witness is an empirical claim?

As in an experiential claim.

The offer is then made that an equally potent subjective experience may stand as evidence for the same definition.

Not in LDS theology. The witness is never claimed to be evidence for anything. Those without it are invited to experience it for themselves, but are not expected to accept the witness of another as "evidence" As indicative of something, yes, but my claims to knowlege are not understood to be evidence that those claims are true.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the King Follet discourse and all its attending concepts are stripped of any evidentiary basis. The spiritual witness is not evidence. An experience, as such, is not evidence to the individual self (due to the fallibility of the human interpretive faculty) nor to others.

I will show throughout my posts here that this unlikely scenario is not only highly improbable but effectually impossible due to the inherent fallibility of human nature, regardless of the supposed nature of the infallibility of a god, which is generally inferred by the definition proffered by the authors of said definition.

Very well, and I will take the position that your cardinal point, that of human infallibility, though obviously true and pedestrian, is, as a general metaphysical mediating principle (the manner in which you have used it before) self negating, as it must logically pertain to your own claims of human infallibility. Or, in other words, if human claims are always suspect, then blanket claims of human fallibility are themselves suspect as general claims.

Agreed. Thus ALL human claims, including those wherein the individual believes to have received an undeniable witness ALL fall under the umbrella of uncertainty. Again we agree that uncertainty is the common element of our experience, including the interpretation of internal experiences.

Those who have dared to define the term "god" have frequently been able to control the masses through their definition. This authorship of the term "god" bequeaths authority to the authors by fiat of those who want to believe the definition. A DE - FINIT - ION is "of the finite" and therefore does a poor job of describing the infinite which is what a definition of "god" attempts to do. The result is a paradox.

Who has been able to control "the masses" through what means is an interesting topic, but not particularly relevant to the concept of testimony.

True enough.

Paradoxes are not amenable to certainty.

No? But can we not be certain that they are paradoxes?

Can we? Uncertainty seems to be the commonality in both of our arguments. Therefore it would be better to deal in probabilities, not certainties.

It may also be argued that god cannot fail to communicate her nature to the fallible creature. This is potentially true. But it is also true that a fallible creature cannot fail to fail unless she ceases to be fallible. And if she ceases to be fallible only for the period of communing with god, she must then return to her fallible state and therefore return to the possibility of failing to comprehend the infallible communication. The only way the fallible creature can comprehend the infallible communique is to remain infallible with regard to the communique. The paradox rears its ugly head again. The fallible creature can never be certain, it must simply have faith and believe--which is a choice. The paradox is not amenable to certainty on this point. Thus the argument for permanently knowing the definition of the infinite is debunked.

This argument promises more than it delivers. This is really a complex series of inferences, predicated on some unmentioned assumptions, that is masquerading as a deductive argument, which, if followed to its conclusion, would be unassailable. However, key assertions being made here, such as that a fallible being, even if receiving infallible communications, must return to fallibly, and hence, garble the infallible communication, are pure assumptions about aspects of both human and divine nature and power that involves the argument, as stated, in deep question begging. The invitation of the Latter Day Saint to "come and see" for yourself, is intended, quite frankly to plow through questions such as this that really cannot be fleshed out in a purely philosophical manner and go directly to the source. One says "very well, I'm going to see for myself if this infallible being can make contact with an infallible being and whether or not that being can communicate with me in a manner that, while not removing general fallibility from my nature, in essence relegates it to background noise within the confines of direct communicaiton of the Spirit of God to the intelligence of a child of God".

Your claim that you are receiving a direct communication from the Spirit of God is based in your belief that you can infallibly know that you have received a direct communication from the Spirit of God. You would like to claim that you have solved this inherent paradox by cutting a gordion knot with you spirit witness claim, but are you certain that there are not other explanations for your experience? If you claim certainty, you claim infallibility. Are you infallible?

I assume only that human beings are fallible. The probability of this is very high. The nature of a reality which is described as god can only be claimed if an infallible communication can be had between fallible humans and god. Is god infallible? How do you know it? Can you claim certainty that god is infallible? If so, you are making a claim about yourself first and your conception of "god" second.

Are you claiming that it is wrong to assert that humans are fallible. Is that a logically inconsistent claim?

Amantha needs really, to define the bounds, conditions, and dynamics of human infallibility such that we could get a better handle on why she thinks it looms as such on overwhelming and unmallable mediating principle in the spiritual realm, a realm she does not believe in but, and by definition cannot claim to understand, but for the sake of the argument, must meet LDS half way on.

I claim that humans are fallible. You claim to infallibly understand a "mediating principle" which originates "in the spiritual realm." Which claim needs to have its bounds, conditions and dynamics defined? The highest probability is that you believe you understand the experience, which you characterize as mediated by a spiritual arbiter, because your culture provided you with the terms and ideologies which led you to interpret your experience in this way. This is true because you cannot infallibly know that you have interpreted your experience correctly.

Let the reasonable person decide.

There is no definition of the infinite. There is only an infinition of the infinite.

Here are the dictionary definitions:

1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
3. Mathematics.
1. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
2. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
3. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

Involved in all of these is the idea of a vast space or term, but one that has a leading edge, or point, that is expanding and will continue to expand forever, without limit. This is different from the concept of eternity, in which there are no leading edges at all, and no extremities either past or future.

You are correct in that this is the best we have done, so far, to understand the infinite. The definition labeled number 1 seems, however, to equate to your definition of eternity.

[_JAK]

God, whether capitalized or not, is a word. What that word means is subject to vast degrees of interpretation. Many people would have us believe that not only do they know what the word god means, but that they also know what this god wants. The people who make this claim ultimately default to the wholly empirical position that their subjective witness is the standard by which this the definition of god can be known as can the personal will of this being.

The offer is then made that an equally potent subjective experience may stand as evidence for the same definition.

I will show throughout my posts here that this unlikely scenario is not only highly improbable but effectually impossible due to the inherent fallibility of human nature, regardless of the supposed nature of the infallibility of a god, which is generally inferred by the definition proffered by the authors of said definition.

Those who have dared to define the term "god" have frequently been able to control the masses through their definition. This authorship of the term "god" bequeaths authority to the authors by fiat of those who want to believe the definition. A DE - FINIT - ION is "of the finite" and therefore does a poor job of describing the infinite which is what a definition of "god" attempts to do. The result is a paradox.

Paradoxes are not amenable to certainty.

It may also be argued that god cannot fail to communicate her nature to the fallible creature. This is potentially true. But it is also true that a fallible creature cannot fail to fail unless she ceases to be fallible. And if she ceases to be fallible only for the period of communing with god, she must then return to her fallible state and therefore return to the possibility of failing to comprehend the infallible communication. The only way the fallible creature can comprehend the infallible communique is to remain infallible with regard to the communique. The paradox rears its ugly head again. The fallible creature can never be certain, it must simply have faith and believe--which is a choice. The paradox is not amenable to certainty on this point. Thus the argument for permanently knowing the definition of the infinite is debunked.

There is no definition of the infinite. There is only an infinition of the infinite.

Always learning, never coming to a knowledge of the truth..

Your parsing of words about what the word god means is silly.

God, the Person, is our Heavenly Father. Flesh and bones. Once mortal. Now immortal. There isn't any goofiness about trying to define god. And as many people who want to argue about it, and how any angels can fit on the head of a pin, you can sit there on your sit and spins and talk yourselves wobbly. It does't change a thing.

On what basis do you claim to know that "God, the Person,[your] Heavenly Father" has flesh and bones, was once mortal and is now immortal?

The above post does not make an argument based in evidence, it merely makes a baseless claim--a testimony of sorts. What is the evidence of this claim?

amantha,

Your last points here are correct and relevant to the debate. 2,000 years ago or even 1,000 years ago evidence was preempted by religious doctrine. That doctrine was propagated not only by religious groups but by governments which used religion to their own advantage.

In virtually all areas today, evidence is critical. And when someone makes a claim as rational response, we ask for the evidence which supports the claim.

Sometimes the evidence is easy and finds immediate consensus. It’s raining.. The evidence is quick and easy. On the other hand, It will rain 5 days from today, is less reliable and the evidence may be ambiguous. The weather system which will bring the rain may be faster or slower than the weather science thinks. Or, the closer we get to the actual time of the weather, the more reliable the prediction may become. Weather science today uses probability rather than absolute statement for forecast. That’s wise and accurate. Hence, the weather services say: We have a 70% chance for rain on a given day in the near term.

The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required for the claim. In religious mythology, we generally have claim upon claim upon claim, etc. absent evidence for even the first claim.

Now you are a thoughtful person on this forum (in my view).

How or can we make a meaningful distinction between religious claims and superstitious claims?

I think we can (my bias). I should like to see your view on this.

JAK

[_amantha]

Cog isn't wrong to have a speculative thread. The philosophical part of philosophical discussions are so precisely for the fact that empirical evidence (or spiritual witnesses) can't answer the questions. But it would seem as if, rather than presenting us with a "philosophical" thread, Cog has simply outlined Mormon God mythology. Perhaps he can articulate for us why an infinite regress of God's is a great solution to the problem of origins, being, or whatever, when virtually every other philosopher would see an infinite regress as symptomatic of a poor answer to a question or a frustrating aspect of metaphysics or language that's not easy to shake, rather than something to write home about as an astounding solution to a problem.

Well said. Almost all mythologies attempt to answer these seminal questions in anthropomorphic terms. The real question is, how is the claimant so certain that they are right about their claim.

[_JAK]

My post does not discuss the existence of god. My post discusses the reliability of the spiritual witness which is directly related to faith based definitions of god including those offered up by the King Follett discourse. If one cannot reliably define god due to the inherent infallibility of the human creature, one cannot claim to be an authority on god--including Joseph Smith.

Once more, amantha: the topic of this thread is NOT the reliability of spiritual witness. If you want to talk about the reliability of spiritual witness, start your own thread about that topic. Quit trying to usurp Loran's thread. This thread is about man's ability to eternally progress, not the reliability of spiritual witness.

This is the Celestial forum. Either stay on topic or get the heck off the thread!

Good grief.

harmony,

What is the methodology for determining reliability? I disagree with your challenge to amantha in that reliability has to have transparency. Absent that, we have nothing.

Just how is “spiritual” anything demonstrated to be reliable? Your emotional reaction – do you see that as “spiritual”?

You have made some fine posts, so my disagreement is not intended to be any kind of personal attack but rather raises questions about just how one or many can evaluate reliability.

If "spiritual" has been extablished, how was it estalished? It seems another word for emotional. How is it different?

JAK

[_amantha]

JAK asked:

How or can we make a meaningful distinction between religious claims and superstitious claims?

I see no way to make meaningful distinction. There are superstitious claims made outside of religion and within it. It is a distinction without a difference.

[_Coggins7]

With historical objectivity we can trace notions of the gods and God to various cultures/civilizations. It arose from superstition and evolved into religion. Religion(s) is more organized than superstition yet remains an outgrowth of that as we consider superstition today. It is mainly a belief in a story or explanation for which no evidence gives support. Religion has that same basis.

This analysis of how religion qua religion first arose in human civilization is pure speculation, which has the unhappy property of being based on not a particle of historical evidence or fact. The origins of religion itself is buried in the past, and light is not going to be shed upon it by 19th century rationalist nostrums that reconstruct the origins of religion from bare Darwinian and Comtean philosophical premises.

The crux of the matter is not that various cultures believed in gods, but that the motifs, symbology, and patterns inherent in these beliefs were so similar across time and culture. The problem is the origin of the idea of God, not the various forms this idea took over time. The Gospel handles this nicely (and presages Joseph Campbell) by giving us a fuller understanding of the Biblical story of the Fall and the origin of mankind in which the time of Adam was the first dispensation in which the Gospel was on the earth. The many religions of antiquity we encounter in our studies are all, in one form or another then, variations on a set of themes, core concepts, and motifs, that appear and reappear throughout time and across vastly disparate cultures. This is the patternism inherent in the study of comparative religion, myth, and folklore, and is indicative of an original dispersion of ideas, patterns, and symbols from a primal religious system that was ultimately lost to history.

J

AK:
What happens here is building one assertion on top of another assertion. Since the first is not established, the second becomes irrelevant. It’s all religious dogma/doctrine. It’s unreliable, not supported by evidence, and should be disregarded.

You are not constructing logical arguments here JAK, but only making assertion upon assertion, exactly what you claim others are doing. You are also not debating the subject at hand.

It might be “uniquely LDS” which gives it absolutely no credibility. It is quite imagined, contrary to your statement. There is not the slightest evidence to support the claims in 3.

What would count as "evidence"?

A continuation to build one assertion on top of another assertion on top of another assertion. Absent clear, transparent, openly tested claim number one, all other claims predicated on the truth of claim number one are irrelevant.

What test would you have in mind?

Only by establishing each claim with the evidence required for academic reliability essential for any claim today can one build upon the first claim.

Yes, that's very true...in say, Geology.