Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[huckelberry]

Gadianton, I do not understand why God must be acknowledged as God by everybody. I have heard it proposed that eventually everybody will as a natural realization. Perhaps so or perhaps not I cannot see how God depends on people's realization. Well perhaps it would help for a being somewhat like God. An approximation might have value and might depend upon taste or popular election.

I gather you realize Ansalm is using the idea that existing things are in some ways derived from ideal forms. The greatest good of course is the ultimate ideal and creative form. I find myself thinking here that the idea of God is smuggled into the beginning assumptions. If ideals are thought broadly enough it could fit nonplatonic (like nominalist g) thinking. Ansalms proof can still work that way but such would easily fit Spinoza's view. A personal God is not demonstrated by any of the rational "proofs". Aquinas concludes his discussion of proofs of God's existence observing that they do not demonstrate personal. That is dependent on revelation.

[Marcus]

To drain the angst from the picture, I'm really just saying that the greatest food is only the greatest by the exclusion of other foods a person has tried, and Anselm is right that everyone has a clear idea about what a "greatest food" would be, even if they deny there could be a greatest food in practice. Anselm, of course, is pulling a bait-and-switch. He appeals to the least common intuition of "the fool", but then once he's captured what he wants, seems to require something way more specialized out of the terms "greatest" "being" "conceivable" to do his job, otherwise he's easily taken down by reductio ad absurdumdoing exactly what I am, suggesting that there must be a greatest food.

The original version of the Euthyphro makes the common-sense notion of Anselm's first postulate clear, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Having multiple deities makes it easy to visualize the problem of "private languages" and the dilemma of necessity. It's possible that there is a best food, for me that's lasagna, but I also understand taste is subjective. What do the gods say? Well, if the gods like different foods, I still understand the idea of what it means to be the best, yet as I assume, it doesn't apply here. But what if they agree? This is the path Socrates takes Euthyphro down -- Euthyphro suggests a best food if the gods unanimously agree on it. And that's when Socrates pulls out the BFG. Isn't that just groupthink?

The gods might be saved by suggesting they are in a holistic relationship, a "social polity" of sorts, where a unique aspect of each god combines such that the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts, and the agreed upon food really is the greatest food when they agree. What if we're talking about taste, and they agree on eggplant?

- I'm lying, I really do like it. (even the devils believe)
- If I try it a few more times I'll like it. (conversion/repentance)
- My colloquial "best possible food" is a degenerate expression of the true words. (natural man doesn't understand)
- "best possible food" means the same as the gods mean, but our tastes are incommensurable. ?

That last one is what doesn't work because it solidifies the subjectivity. Milton's Satan can't remain defiant in hell. My suggestion is that the Supreme being must be universally acknowledged as supreme, including by the devils and the damned, and theologians will always work this out so that somehow, God is universally acknowledged as all powerful and all good, (or the needed attributes), even if it comes down to stipulating psychological states. My anthropological theology of Mormons goes the other route, I'm not ascribing to Mormons what I want them to believe (at least I'm trying to avoid that), I'm trying to discern what they really are apprehending as God.

addendum:

As a practical example of the problem of necessity revealed his very thread, take Shades' divine pronouncement as supreme board ruler that MG's quote was wrong because the forum participants don't want to read the same thing twice. Some forum participants such as myself and Marcus claimed that we didn't care about having to read it twice, his error was something else. Shades doubled down and repeated in red ink to MG that the problem was making forum participants read the same thing twice (God is unchanging, of course, and can never be wrong). As a necessitarian, what are Shades' options? Marcus and I could both be lying, we really do think that but won't admit it. If we continue to participate and if it happens again, we'll come to see that yes, posting the same thing twice really was the error, just as stated by the rule. It's also possible that we don't understand the ruling. It could be that everyone's reactions on the thread will one day be revealed as the very expression of having been burdened by reading the same thing twice. That would be like coming to realize Hesperus and Phosphorus refer to the same planet.

Like I said recently, I learn something new here, every day, frequently from you Gad. Thank you for expanding my horizons again! I'm off to consider more the implications of being overly sure that Hesperus is Phosphorus.
I'll be back.

[Gadianton]

Perhaps so or perhaps not I cannot see how God depends on people's realization

In a drawer of my tool cart is a "hunk of steel". It will continue to be that (or something) independent of me and every other person. However, along with me and enough other people, it's a hammer.

An impersonal God is like the "hunk of steel". A personal God is like the hammer. Some qualities, like "perfectly just" make no sense without human culture. Trying to save hammers and justice by assuming they were first ideas in God's mind will inevitably lead to God as a relativist or to misalignment between an official definition and the definition used by a culture that has significantly drifted away from the ideal.

Edwards' essay on viewing the damned in my opinion is a masterclass on preventing misalignment.

[Gadianton]

consider more the implications of being overly sure that Hesperus is Phosphorus

Thanks Marcus, I admit that H=P is a famous Kripke example.

[malkie]

Perhaps so or perhaps not I cannot see how God depends on people's realization

In a drawer of my tool cart is a "hunk of steel". It will continue to be that (or something) independent of me and every other person. However, along with me and enough other people, it's a hammer.

An impersonal God is like the "hunk of steel". A personal God is like the hammer. Some qualities, like "perfectly just" make no sense without human culture. Trying to save hammers and justice by assuming they were first ideas in God's mind will inevitably lead to God as a relativist or to misalignment between an official definition and the definition used by a culture that has significantly drifted away from the ideal.

Edwards' essay on viewing the damned in my opinion is a masterclass on preventing misalignment.

I'm not sure if this is relevant in this context, but in my tool box is a "hunk of steel" that I sometimes use as a hammer. I also sometimes use it as an anvil. However, to me and you and enough other people, it's a length of 2x2 square steel tubing.

ETA: I also have a head for a small sledgehammer that serves as a more sturdy anvil when needed. I have never used it to hammer anything, and don't expect ever to do so, mostly because it lacks a handle and I have another sledgehammer.

[Gadianton]

Yes it's relevant, as the web of meaning of words is complex and part of the problem here. Next to my hammer in the same drawer is a tool that most people would say is a hammer, it has the familiar head and claw, but it's a demolition tool. One of the very last things you'd want to ever use it for is to hammer a nail into something with it.

[malkie]

Yes it's relevant, as the web of meaning of words is complex and part of the problem here. Next to my hammer in the same drawer is a tool that most people would say is a hammer, it has the familiar head and claw, but it's a demolition tool. One of the very last things you'd want to ever use it for is to hammer a nail into something with it.

This makes me think of two of the many measures of quality:

• degree of conformance to specification - may be quite objective if the spec is in terms of measurable characteristics
• degree of fitness for purpose - often more subjective

My square steel tubing may conform superbly to specification in terms of size measurements, composition, tolerances of both. But fundamentally I don't care, because the specification irrelevant for the purposes I put it to.

Both the tubing and the sledgehammer head are high on the fitness for purpose scale, each in its own way, when I'm using them. But my purposes are not the purposes that the designers and creators had in mind, since they were responding to perceived or explicit purposes that are "normal" for pieces of steel tubing and sledgehammer heads.

As you imply, there are times when you might be driven to use your demolition tool to hammer a nail into something.

[Marcus]

consider more the implications of being overly sure that Hesperus is Phosphorus

Thanks Marcus, I admit that H=P is a famous Kripke example.

Philosophy was not as present in my formal education as I wish it had been, so I love it when topics are introduced here--this one is very interesting.

[Physics Guy]

I don't buy the Ontological Argument. I think that Kant nailed its flaw. But I think that it's a good argument in the sense that it's well worth considering. One can learn a lot from thinking about what something would have to be, to be the greatest thing.

I think I'd have to say that for me one clear feature of the greatest possible being is that the greatest being would be as violently opposed as possible to state-sanctioned torture. So Christianity kind of has me at God was crucified. Everything else is defined around that, for me.

[malkie]

I don't buy the Ontological Argument. I think that Kant nailed its flaw. But I think that it's a good argument in the sense that it's well worth considering. One can learn a lot from thinking about what something would have to be, to be the greatest thing.

I think I'd have to say that for me one clear feature of the greatest possible being is that the greatest being would be as violently opposed as possible to state-sanctioned torture. So Christianity kind of has me at God was crucified. Everything else is defined around that, for me.

Hmmmm. Would it be OK by the greatest being to devise methods of torture used by a state on prisoners? If not, that would seem to disqualify Mormon god from being said "greatest being" since through his servants, the prophets, he approves the calling of Bishop throughout the church:

Mormon leader steps down over torture role