The saddest part is MG seems to consider what Gad has written as a critique.
Nothing to be sad about. I'm simply suggesting that if folks want to 'get into it' a bit deeper with arguments that have been presented by a respected LDS theologian/philosopher that deal with gadianton's arguments as presented, that they simply follow the steps provided to get to a place where they can read, for themselves, the arguments Ostler makes that deal with what gadianton has presented.
I would think you and others would be interested in that. Maybe not.
MG wrote:May I suggest, however, that you make the following inquiry into Perplexity AI? Here it is:
"How would Blake Ostler, in short form, respond to Gadianton's arguments?" You can simply select your whole post and paste it after the inquiry.
First of all, MG, I've received extensive feedback from both Gemini and DeepSeek already. I don't see why Perplexity would add much to what I already know. And I really don't see why I'd restrict the feedback to a rough simulation of Blake. He's free to register and post here and I'd love to get his take.
Yeah, it's too bad you can't take the time to digest a single one of those five points enough to put it in your own words and post it as a response in this thread. Because I'm not going to waste my time getting feedback from an inferior question to those I've already asked, especially when there would be nobody to discuss the results with.
I'm simply suggesting that if folks want to 'get into it' a bit deeper with arguments that have been presented by a respected LDS theologian/philosopher that deal with gadianton's arguments as presented
I've read enough of Blakes work to be pretty sure nothing he's worked on would respond to my post.
Lost Gospel of Thomas 1:8 - And Jesus said, "what about the Pharisees? They did it too! Wherefore, we shall do it even more!"
The saddest part is MG seems to consider what Gad has written as a critique.
Nothing to be sad about. I'm simply suggesting that if folks want to 'get into it' a bit deeper with arguments that have been presented by a respected LDS theologian/philosopher that deal with gadianton's arguments as presented, that they simply follow the steps provided to get to a place where they can read, for themselves, the arguments Ostler makes that deal with what gadianton has presented.
I would think you and others would be interested in that. Maybe not.
Oh well.
Regards,
MG
It’s sad because you seem to read Gad as attacking Mormonism when he is arguably refining it.
Hi Gadianton, as I mentioned on another thread recently, I'm just a regular guy, not trained/disciplined in the OA or deeper level metaphysics. But I can use a computer.
I am not able to use AI to break apart and make in depth arguments in regards to your post.
May I suggest, however, that you make the following inquiry into Perplexity AI? Here it is:
"How would Blake Ostler, in short form, respond to Gadianton's arguments?" You can simply select your whole post and paste it after the inquiry.
When I did that, and without posting verbatim any text strings of "word mash" as some might call it on this thread, I found five things mentioned...and explained in detail...that seem to point towards most of your F-S chain problems never getting off the ground.
Of course, per board rules, I will not mention those five reasons in this post for fear of not following board rules.
What I will say, however, is that these five 'chain gang' reasons seem to give some real push back to your whole thesis.
I will simply leave it there.
P.S. actually what works better is to simply use the Comet browser, select your complete post, click on the Assistant button, and type in the previously mentioned inquiry.
The only reason I'm posting on this thread and in this manner is to demonstrate that there are always arguments, pro and con, in favor or disfavor of many of the ontological arguments for and against God that are out there. Including the Mormon God (the term most here are comfortable with).
All in a tidy little space that a regular person can actually understand.
But not post here, god forbid! The rules of this forum dictate that more information is NOT better.
If given permission I will cut and paste the list and put it over on the A.I. thread. But not unless I receive permission. Oh no no no.
Regards,
MG
Lets go over to the AI megathread and I will gab at you using AI on this. I would be fascinated to see how AI handles Ostler in relation to Gadianton's incredibly fascinating ideas in his post! I too have been looking at it with AI and am stunned at just how powerful AI thinks Gad's points are, even though there are some weaknesses. Overall I get the impression that Gad has it 9 out of 10! that's pretty damn impressive to me! Yeah. lets head over and put AI onto this fully including our prompts and find out the mysteries. Incidentally, AI gives Joseph Smith MANY KUDOS, yes, I said that right, KUDOS on his utterly fascinating theology involving all this! It also gives many kudos to Gad. I am not kidding. I wanna see how Ostler also fares with this because he obviously has put an enormous amount of thought into it as well. This would be a blast to do with you!
Last edited by Philo Sofee on Tue Feb 24, 2026 2:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hi MG. Just updating this so we can have a discussion using AI on Gad's post and examine Ostler as well! This could be very cool and informative. Just ignore any naysayers and don't worry about responding to everyone who tries to take you off topic. I would absolutely LOVE to explore this in serious depth and detail with you. It is the very most fascinating theology of Joseph Smith and I LOVE examining it. Here is my first run of Gad's post through AI, along with the prompt I used. Some of these may be long. After the evening was up I had over 250 pages of text!!!!! But I will only post the very first part which isn't that long so we can compare and contrast it.
Here is my first prompt. I also include Gad's post. We don't have to keep posting the entire thing. If we want to talk about parts, we can select them and discuss:
Philo's Prompt to CHATGPT 5.2: Gadianton philosophizing with us. Can you give me the skinny of what he means here? Don't shorten it or summarize, lets see the full enchilada and analysis and information. Here is Gadianton - OA = Ontological Argument I see the Ontological Argument breaking down into two parts. The first is the intuition that if you're imagining the greatest thing ever, and if you can think of a way to improve it, it wouldn't be the greatest thing ever. This is iterative and in principle allows any starting point to arrive at God. The second intuition is that the greatest thing imaginable must be actualized if it's truly the greatest. The best beach vacation you can imagine would only be better if you're really there. Kant, a firm Lutheran and desperate believer, rejected much of traditional theology, especially the OA. He argued "existence isn't a predicate," such that this second intuition secures nothing. While the second intuition gets all the discussion in history, I think the first intuition is the more important intuition, as it gets to the heart of what people really mean when they say "God". If I see two men wielding a lightning bolt and one bolt is puny while the other is massive and steaming off energy, then the second man must be Zeus. While the "greatest being to be thought" has become an abstract container within Christianity, Mormon culture has taken the concept seriously. The OA, in its original form, seems best suited to begin consideration with a single, supernatural entity that has transcended humans long ago as an essence. But the Bible doesn't provide such an easy starting point. Instead, it tells us Jesus -- a deity -- was a man, and he shares the stage with two other very different kinds of deities. A body poses challenges: does lightning-bolt size really count? There is no limit to the size of a bolt one can imagine. Judgments of physical attributes such as "beauty" are subjective -- in fact, the Bible suggests the plainest look may even be best. But these are minor challenges when compared to the plural Gods problem, since "greatest" assures exclusivity. The Christian "trinity" patches things by declaring three equal to one by fiat. However, Mormonism holds true to the OA's first intuition and aims to secure two revealed beings, the Father and Son, as true all-powerful equals. The Father is the great creator because he created this world. The Son is the great redeemer because he died for all on this world. But wouldn't the father be a greater creator if he'd created two worlds instead of one? The OA urges an infinitude of worlds created and also an infinitude of worlds redeemed. Another problem: how does an embodied Savior stack up against a Father who is Spirit? Well, we don't need to answer that if we give the Father a body as well. Okay, what about roles? Without relying on proof by declaration, like the trinity does, can we really say the infinite creator and infinite redeemer are equal roles? Possibly not, as Joseph Smith decided that Jesus needs to create worlds also, and lest the old man whoop his boy in the eternal log chop, Jesus will need to create an infinitude of them. But once the Son is both infinite redeemer and infinite creator, has the script flipped, and now he's officially beating dad? Joseph Smith, again, seems to have the solution. Joseph Smith wrote: The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, “As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power”—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner, to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again. Incredibly, even though my mom taught me that the Father was also the Savior of his own mortal world, I can find nothing semi-official to back it up. It seems to be one of those truths that Chapel Mormons know about and nobody can say where they got it from. This quote by Joseph Smith seems to demand it, but it would be nice to find it more explicitly. But if we run with it: the father and son are equals because they both are both infinite creators and infinite redeemers, according to Joseph Smith. But making father and son literal equals only exacerbates the original problem, because if they tie, then how can there be an exclusive greatest being? Let's hold that question a moment and look at how another Mormon thinker tried to resolve the problem of God's exclusivity, in this case, with deified men. Orson Pratt resolved the problem of a 'greatest being' by making God a category that exalted beings share membership in. It's your everyday Duns S-c-o-t-u-s solution. Well, we can give up at any time and invent a category, just as early Christians did with "substance" so that 3=1 by fiat. Yet, if we do that now, then don't we waste all that finessing to make the Father and Son so similar? Fortunately, Mormons seem to have found their way by continuing to press the OA intuition into extreme territory. Their solution, however, requires a major theological sacrifice. I think though, that the sacrifice has been made. This isn't me trying to find a solution for Mormonism, it's me pointing to what Mormonism seems to have come up with already. Here's the thought experiment: Imagine if Lou Midgley, lost in the eternities (as he was once lost in the theaters of Europe, according to Dan), meets an apologist from another world. They begin comparing genealogy, and it turns out that while Lou's Heavenly Father was the Savior of his home world, as Joseph Smith implied, Lou's Heavenly Grandfather was a repentant alcoholic and garbage man from the Rose Park of his mortal world. With a twinkle in his eye, Lou's counterpart apologist mentions smugly that his own Heavenly Grandfather just happened to be the redeemer who died for Lou's Heavenly Grandfather, who was a total failure until the very end! I highly doubt Lou would find this acceptable. A related intuition from Joseph Fielding Smith: Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: Perhaps this is the reason Jesus Christ was sent here instead of to some other world, for in some other world they would not have crucified Him, and His presence was needed here because of the extreme wickedness of the inhabitants of this earth My mom also taught me that this world had the most wicked and the most righteous inhabitants -- it's the most polarized world of God's infinite creations. The problem with the OA intuitions of Mormonism is that they're wrapped up in the parallel intuition of making oneself feel special. It's always this dispensation, of this church, of this world, of this Father-Savior where all the big action happens. We're the best of the best. And this runs into conflicts. In some world out there, a counterpart to Lou comes to learn that he comes from a long line of repented garbage-man gods. Some were tranq addicts. There are other marks of disntinction. It's said that we can become Gods, but the Father's world count will always exceed ours. Not Jesus's! Jesus actually co-created all of the Father's worlds up to this point in the pre-existence. Their world count together, is already infinite. The OA implies that even if I become immortal and create my first planet, I can't be the "greatest being to be thought." My children will suggest that there are greater beings out there who created an infinite number of worlds, lived sinless lives, and died for infinite worlds also. Exalted men are only patronized as Gods. And so the OA rules out deification. Dan will be okay with that as he has denied it anyway. "God" becomes a consolation container, at best. But even if we clear the field of all the "garbage Gods", we still have the competition between father and son, and their fathers and sons who were all both infinite creator and savior. I do think Mormons have solved the competition problem, not by making a container, but making "greatest being to be thought" holistic. This is not by definitional fiat or waxing mysterious, or creating a category in desperation. The chain really is holistic. Imagine I become a "God", create a planet, and pick a savior. When this savior becomes a father and creates infinite worlds, I will be surpassed. But could we then say that my son, an F-S God achieved the highest status possible? Nope. He's orphaned. His children will have me for the Grandfather God and even if my God is on the F-S chain, I'm the gap, the non-savior sinning mortal. It would be better for those inhabitants calling him God not to have that gap; to have a pure line of Fathers who were sinless Saviors. The infinite F-S chain makes the specialness of any God in the chain dependent upon all the other Gods in the chain. If any God were not also a savior, it's a gap. They must be equal. If a God sins and "ceases to be God", then that's also a gap. From the perspective of any person created anywhere, their God is God not only because of personal greatness, but the greatness of all predecessor Gods in the chain, because it would have been better for any inhabitant anywhere to have a God with a greater pedigree than a lesser one. I think this is a very good solution to the OA when the OA is forced to work out multiple beings as "best". As a bonus, Kant also rejected the cosmological argument, and certainly, no non-Christian philosopher or scientist thinks we need Aristotle's framework. Infinite causal chains aren't seen as a big deal anymore. Causal chain language has been updated with possible worlds and relations between counterfactuals, and even other systems. Even the kooky "infinities filled with stuff" of Mormonism is similar to modern metaphysics. When Christian theologians laugh at the "infinite regress" of Mormonism, they don't have much to stand on. I think the F-S chain is a better solution to an OA constrained by multiple beings than the trinity is, by far. In fact, it may be the only seriously OA-driven ontology out there. Yet it does have some major problems. The most obvious is scrapping deification. Like I've said, I'm not making the call, Mormons seem to have made it themselves by wanting everyone to be special, but not so much as each themselves need a special connection to deity that most don't have. In that regard, they fail Kant as Kant would have demanded they think in universal terms. Think about how those born on other worlds you require as lesser might feel. Also, Mormon leaders have consistently found ways to make sure God and Jesus have a higher status. Another problem is the Holy Ghost gets scrapped. Mormon teachings about the HG are completely illogical and the HG was never worked into the Mormon eternities. He's got to go. Another serious problem is Mormon "infinity" intuition fails to get them what they want. Jesus is special (rare) because he died for infinitely many. The problem is, the entire tree of Gods and their worlds can be produced algorithmically; they all add up to infinity. Yet, the F-S chain is also countably infinite. There are as many saviors in the eternities as there are people (see Hilbert's Hotel). Mormon leaders, with a God abacus, could have made significant discoveries in number theory. Had a Mormon thinker carefully dwelt on the problem of making a savior both rare while also having an infinite chain of saviors, a Mormon could have beat Georg Cantor to the idea of orders of infinity. If I ever find within the JD or Millennial Star "worlds without number" equated to real numbers (or a concept that maps to real numbers) while the number of Gods equates to integers, such that the number of Gods in an infinite regress of Gods is dwarfed by the number of creations, that could make Mormon theology the GOAT in my mind. An example of truly impressive theology, although totally unrelated to this discussion, is Jonathan Edwards' invention of compatibilism, which is accepted both by a good portion of Christianity and virtually every atheist alive (I'm not personally an avowed compatibilist). The OA is also very good, as it's insightful and original, and to me is still the best argument for God, and is the best way to define God. In contrast, the cosmological argument sucks, not just because the model is outdated, but because it was ripped off from Aristotle. Kurt Goedel reinvented the ontological argument, there has been no comparable modern interest in the cosmological argument. When "faith meets reason" I want to see revelation inspire original insights, not borrow ideas from the progress of the outside world and then work their religion around it. And then, I want to see those original insights matter for something beyond their insular religious community. I think Jonathan Edwards gets an A+ for compatibilism, Anselm an A for the OA, Mormonism's F-S Chain gets a qualified B, the cosmological argument gets a C, the trinity gets a D, and the Mormon doctrine of the Holy Ghost gets an F. I only award the "B" as everything I need to know to arrive at the F-S chain came from my mom and dad, but these are piecemeal insights and doctrines that emerge as a whole only as a culturally constructed tapestry, there is no singular article (to my knowledge) that puts enough of it together to earn this. And so one could argue that the fair grade is a C+.
Here is Chat's Reply (I will leave it in the format it comes in because, quite honestly, it really does make it easier to read and understand):
Alright—this is a dense, smart, and very Mormon-specific piece of philosophy, and you’re right to ask for the full enchilada rather than a tidy summary. I’ll walk through what Gadianton is doing step by step, explain the philosophical machinery he’s using, flag where he’s being insightful, where he’s being speculative, and where the tensions really are. I’ll keep his structure intact so you can see the argument breathe.
1. How Gadianton is slicing the Ontological Argument (OA)
Gadianton splits the Ontological Argument into two intuitions, which is actually a very helpful move.
Intuition 1: Iterative greatness
If you can imagine something greater than X, then X isn’t the greatest conceivable thing.
This is straight Anselm, but Gadianton emphasizes the iterative nature of the idea:
Start with anything you think is great
Ask: “Can it be improved?”
If yes, keep improving. In principle, this process converges on “God”
This is less about proving existence and more about clarifying what we mean by ‘God’.
He’s saying: “God” is whatever survives unlimited ‘could this be better?’ challenges.
That’s actually a very clean conceptual insight.
Intuition 2: Existence adds greatness
A thing that exists is greater than the same thing that doesn’t. This is the famous move that Kant attacked.
Gadianton uses the vacation analogy: Imagined beach vacation < actually being there
Kant famously replies: existence is not a predicate—it doesn’t add a property to the thing. A hundred real dollars don’t have more conceptual content than a hundred imagined dollars.
Gadianton agrees Kant wins this fight.
2. Why Gadianton thinks intuition #1 matters more than #2
This is one of the strongest parts of the essay.
He argues that historically everyone obsesses over intuition #2, but intuition #1 is actually what people mean when they say “God.”
Example:
Two guys wield lightning bolts. One bolt is puny. One is massive and radiating power. The second one is Zeus.
That’s not an existence claim.
That’s a greatness-ranking claim.
So when people say “God,” they’re not saying “a being that exists,” they’re saying:
“The being that is the most impressive, powerful, authoritative, awe-worthy.”
This is anthropologically and psychologically sharp.
3. Christianity’s problem: plurality + embodiment
Now Gadianton turns the OA against biblical theology.
Problem 1: Jesus was a man
The OA works best when: You start with a single, abstract, maximally great essence
But Christianity starts with: A man, with a body, sharing divinity with others.
This complicates greatness metrics:
Physical traits can scale infinitely (bigger lightning bolt)
Beauty is subjective. Bodies create limits or at least questions. These are manageable problems—but not the big one.
Problem 2: “Greatest” implies exclusivity
OA logic says: There can only be one greatest conceivable being.
Christianity responds with the Trinity: Three persons, One substance, Equality by declaration
Gadianton is blunt:
This is by fiat. A category hack.
4. Mormonism takes the OA seriously
This is where Gadianton becomes genuinely interesting.
He argues Mormonism doesn’t dodge the OA—it leans into it.
Father and Son as equals
Father = infinite creator
Son = infinite redeemer
But OA pressure immediately kicks in: Wouldn’t the Father be greater if he created more worlds?
Wouldn’t the Son be greater if he redeemed more worlds?
OA logic forces: Infinite worlds, Infinite redemptions.
Joseph Smith responds by: Making Jesus a creator too, making both Father and Son embodied
Making both infinite in scope, But now a new problem emerges…
5. The equality paradox
If Father and Son are both: Infinite creators, Infinite redeemers...
Then:
Which one is greater?
If they tie, OA exclusivity breaks.
If one surpasses the other, hierarchy reappears.
Joseph Smith’s solution (as Gadianton reads it):
The Father also had a mortal life. The Father also laid down his body and took it up again
Meaning: The Father was once a Savior too. This makes Father and Son symmetric.
6. The regress problem explodes
Now Gadianton pushes the logic further—brutally and honestly.
If: Every God was once a Savior, Every Savior redeems a world, Every Savior later becomes a Father
Then we get an infinite chain of Father–Savior (F–S) Gods.
This raises problems Mormon culture often avoids: The “garbage-man god” problem
He gives a devastating thought experiment:
What if: Your Heavenly Grandfather was morally unimpressive, Or worse, a screw-up who barely repented
But someone else’s lineage is morally glorious all the way back?
OA intuition says: A God with a better pedigree is greater.
This destroys the idea that every God can be equally ultimate.
7. Orson Pratt’s category move—and why Gadianton rejects it
Orson Pratt’s solution: “God” is a class, Many beings can belong to it.
Gadianton calls this a Duns Supreme Court maneuver—creating a category to dissolve exclusivity.
He says: Sure, you can do this—but then why did we work so hard to make Father and Son identical?
It’s the same move as: Trinity’s “substance” Just a different label
8. Gadianton’s real proposal: Holistic greatness
This is the core thesis.
He argues Mormonism has implicitly landed on this idea:
No individual God is greatest on their own.
The entire Father–Savior chain is what’s greatest.
Key idea: Any “gap” in the chain weakens the greatness of every God after it
Every God must be: Sinless, A Savior, A Father, Or else the chain is defective
From the perspective of any created being: Your God’s greatness depends on every God before him.
This preserves:
OA intuition, Plurality, No fiat categories, No mystery substance, No need to reject infinite regress
This is actually metaphysically sophisticated.
9. Why Kant doesn’t kill this version
Kant rejected:
OA (existence as predicate)
Cosmological argument (causal necessity)
But modern metaphysics:
Accepts infinite causal chains, Uses possible worlds, Uses counterfactual dependence
So Mormon “worlds without number” isn’t automatically absurd.
Gadianton is right here:
Christians who mock infinite regress are leaning on outdated metaphysics.
10. The cost: massive theological casualties
Gadianton is very clear—this solution is not free.
Casualty 1: Deification collapses
You can “become a god,” but: Never the greatest conceivable being
Always derivative, Always patronized, Godhood becomes honorary, not ontological.
Casualty 2: The Holy Ghost dies
He’s right here, frankly.
Mormon HG doctrine: Has no eternal role, No clear future embodiment, No place in the F–S chain
He’s structurally useless in this ontology.
Casualty 3: Infinity backfires
If:
There are infinitely many worlds, Infinitely many saviors, Infinitely many Gods
Then:
Jesus is no longer rare. This is where Gadianton brings in Hilbert’s Hotel and Cantor.
He’s saying:
Mormon theology almost discovered transfinite cardinality
But never formalized it, So it can’t distinguish:
“Infinitely many worlds” from “Infinitely many saviors." If Mormon thinkers had separated:
Gadianton - I have posted over on the Artificial Intelligence Megathread your post and AI's response to it. I am going to see how MG also brings in Blake Ostler's ideas, which I think is going to be very cool to do as a comparison/contrast with the very fine offering you have given us. Come on over and see what AI is saying. It is seriously impressive how it analyzed your views and showed where the strengths are!
MG wrote:May I suggest, however, that you make the following inquiry into Perplexity AI? Here it is:
"How would Blake Ostler, in short form, respond to Gadianton's arguments?" You can simply select your whole post and paste it after the inquiry.
First of all, MG, I've received extensive feedback from both Gemini and DeepSeek already. I don't see why Perplexity would add much to what I already know. And I really don't see why I'd restrict the feedback to a rough simulation of Blake. He's free to register and post here and I'd love to get his take.
Yeah, it's too bad you can't take the time to digest a single one of those five points enough to put it in your own words and post it as a response in this thread. Because I'm not going to waste my time getting feedback from an inferior question to those I've already asked, especially when there would be nobody to discuss the results with.
I'm simply suggesting that if folks want to 'get into it' a bit deeper with arguments that have been presented by a respected LDS theologian/philosopher that deal with gadianton's arguments as presented
I've read enough of Blakes work to be pretty sure nothing he's worked on would respond to my post.
Oh cool! It will be very interesting to see how ChatGPT 5.2 compares. I have posted it over on the Megathread of Artificial Intelligence.
not a bad summary. It will error on the side of over-the-top praise unless you prompt to criticize, and then error in the other direction. If MG can invest enough of his time into posting his output here I'll read it. One problem I suspect he will have is his AI inventing quotes or positions to sound like Blake without actually being very Blake. MG gives his AIs really open-ended tasks. For a 5 minute investment from MG, I can spend an hour just sorting out what is credible response and what is hallucination.
Lost Gospel of Thomas 1:8 - And Jesus said, "what about the Pharisees? They did it too! Wherefore, we shall do it even more!"
not a bad summary. It will error on the side of over-the-top praise unless you prompt to criticize, and then error in the other direction. If MG can invest enough of his time into posting his output here I'll read it. One problem I suspect he will have is his AI inventing quotes or positions to sound like Blake without actually being very Blake. MG gives his AIs really open-ended tasks. For a 5 minute investment from MG, I can spend an hour just sorting out what is credible response and what is hallucination.
I have always tried to be as open in my prompts with AI as I can, but lead it in an investigative direction. Like I told MG, I ended up after including a lot more of my questions and helps for clarifications with over 200 more pages of stuff about your essay here! It got very deep, utterly fascinating, and spectacularly informative. Wait til ya see how it throttles the Trinity comparing what Joseph Smith said..... blew me away. Shall I wait for MG to post, or shall I bring in the 2nd round on my investigation of your essay?
I'd say give MG a chance to respond. I'm about ready to go to bed anyway. Yesterday, one glass of wine turned into another and into some other stuff. Just like ole Joe and the boys, eh? Nothing could be more fundamentally Mormon than strong drink and bat-crap crazy theology.
Lost Gospel of Thomas 1:8 - And Jesus said, "what about the Pharisees? They did it too! Wherefore, we shall do it even more!"
The rules of this forum dictate that more information is NOT better.
