Presumably, He inhabits a particular location in our universe, or at least a location reachable from our physical universe (if not by us).
Maybe, but that is a religious claim, not a historical one.
Ask a Mormon, Part 4
- Thread starter Eran of Arcadia
- Start date
Presumably, He inhabits a particular location in our universe, or at least a location reachable from our physical universe (if not by us).
Maybe, but that is a religious claim, not a historical one.
So on this view, God is a body like any other (at least as far as physicality goes): circumscribed in space?
That seems to raise all sorts of issues. Presumably God is composed of atoms just as we are. And presumably, if he is a physical object like any other, he is constantly gaining and losing atoms. But doesn't that seem odd? It raises the possibility that you or I might be partly composed of atoms that once formed part of God.
(The Epicureans faced a similar objection, interestingly: their solution was that the gods are somehow capable of holding themselves together and not losing or acquiring atoms.)
Perhaps if God were a diamond then this wouldn't be such an issue. But if God is a living body, as presumably he is, then the problem is worse, because presumably he is composed of cells as we are, and these are constantly renewing themselves.
If God is physical, it would also seem that he should be destructible. Could he be decomposed into his constituent atoms? Could we drop a nuclear bomb on God and turn his atoms into energy? Even if God turns out to be stronger than any other force in the universe, and therefore not susceptible to such things, this would still be a contingent fact; he would remain at least destructible in theory if not in practice. But that doesn't seem very divine.
Moreover, if God is circumscribed within space, then we may still ask where he is: on another planet? Flying in the interstellar void? That just seems really odd to me. Could we actually fly out in a spaceship and see God passing by, like submariners encountering a whale? Is there any guarantee that there is only one God?
No doubt there are answers to all these questions (whether you can address them all individually, I don't know), but really they all boil down to a basic problem I have with this conception of God, which is that he just doesn't seem very Godlike. It seems to me to describe a sort of alien entity which, while very powerful, is just another creature within the universe. There's nothing inconsistent about such a belief, of course, but it just strikes me as really a form of atheism: it seems to me that you're saying that there isn't really a God, there's just this other thing that acts a bit like God but isn't really. But perhaps that just reflects my own Anselmian assumptions about what the word "God" means.
Well, assuming that He is a physical object in the same way that all the other physical objects we have observed, are; but I don't know that this is the case.
Maybe . . .
Presumably . . . maybe not.
God is more than just a physical body, though.
There is only one God (by this definition of God) in this universe, and no reason to think that He is usually anywhere we can reach.
It's different from the traditional Christian view of God, sure, but there is no reason to limit the definition of God like that. After all, what is the difference between "God" and "entity that acts like God, and has all the attributes of God", anyways? Do we have a test to determine if an entity can be classified "God", and if so, who chooses the criteria?
Well, there are two usual approaches to God (as indeed there are to most things like this). The first is sometimes called the "Anselmian" approach, and involves defining God first (usually by saying he is a perfect being), and then asking whether something meeting that definition actually exists. The second involves assuming that something exists which may reasonably fairly be called God, or at least taking that as a working hypothesis, and then asking what that thing is like.
Another way of expressing the difference is to say that the first approach takes "God" to be a kind of thing - so something counts as God if it meets the criteria for divinity - while the second takes "God" to be a name denoting an entity which might or might not have certain properties.
If you're taking the first approach, then if a putative candidate for Godhood turns out not to match the definition you're using, then you can say that that's not God, without much difficulty. If you're taking the second approach, then you can't, because you haven't pre-decided what attributes something must have to count as God.
Now personally the Anselmian approach makes much more sense to me. It seems to me quite reasonable to expect that we establish what we mean by "God" before asking whether something meeting that definition exists. Of course, there are different definitions for "God", so we can at best only be asking whether "God" for some meaning of "God" exists. And if we say that he doesn't, that leaves open the possibility that "God" for some other meaning of "God" exists. On the other hand, there is at least a fair amount of agreement among theists, at least in the western classical tradition, that "God" means an entity which is perfect, or if you want to get really Anselmian, as great as it is possible to be. There is, moreover, further agreement that an entity that meets this criterion has the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection, as well as various other properties such as eternity, omnipresence, and being the creator of anything that exists other than himself. To my mind, at least, to ask whether God has these properties is like asking whether a bachelor has to be unmarried - it's just part of the definition of a bachelor that he be unmarried, and if you find one who is married, he's not a bachelor after all. Similarly, if it turns out that God exists but he isn't (say) omnipotent or morally perfect, then to my mind, and to the mind of most people in the western theistic tradition and indeed most people in modern philosophical theology, he's not God after all.
I agree that there isn't any obvious difference between "God" and "entity who has all the attributes of God", at least on the Anselmian approach, which treats "God" as a kind. But in the case of the Mormon God, he doesn't have the divine attributes, or at least not the ones I think most people are inclined to regard as divine attributes.
To turn this into a question: would you say that a being greater than the Mormon God is conceivable? E.g. one which was eternal (not merely everlasting) and non-physical (not confined to a particular location in space).
Another way of expressing the difference is to say that the first approach takes "God" to be a kind of thing - so something counts as God if it meets the criteria for divinity - while the second takes "God" to be a name denoting an entity which might or might not have certain properties.
If you're taking the first approach, then if a putative candidate for Godhood turns out not to match the definition you're using, then you can say that that's not God, without much difficulty. If you're taking the second approach, then you can't, because you haven't pre-decided what attributes something must have to count as God.
Now personally the Anselmian approach makes much more sense to me. It seems to me quite reasonable to expect that we establish what we mean by "God" before asking whether something meeting that definition exists. Of course, there are different definitions for "God", so we can at best only be asking whether "God" for some meaning of "God" exists. And if we say that he doesn't, that leaves open the possibility that "God" for some other meaning of "God" exists. On the other hand, there is at least a fair amount of agreement among theists, at least in the western classical tradition, that "God" means an entity which is perfect, or if you want to get really Anselmian, as great as it is possible to be. There is, moreover, further agreement that an entity that meets this criterion has the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection, as well as various other properties such as eternity, omnipresence, and being the creator of anything that exists other than himself. To my mind, at least, to ask whether God has these properties is like asking whether a bachelor has to be unmarried - it's just part of the definition of a bachelor that he be unmarried, and if you find one who is married, he's not a bachelor after all. Similarly, if it turns out that God exists but he isn't (say) omnipotent or morally perfect, then to my mind, and to the mind of most people in the western theistic tradition and indeed most people in modern philosophical theology, he's not God after all.
I agree that there isn't any obvious difference between "God" and "entity who has all the attributes of God", at least on the Anselmian approach, which treats "God" as a kind. But in the case of the Mormon God, he doesn't have the divine attributes, or at least not the ones I think most people are inclined to regard as divine attributes.
To turn this into a question: would you say that a being greater than the Mormon God is conceivable? E.g. one which was eternal (not merely everlasting) and non-physical (not confined to a particular location in space).
The word "God" has traditionally been used to describe many, many more entities than the Anselmian view. The Mormon conception of God has more in common with the mainstream traditional Christian view than either have with Zeus, or Thor, or Isis, or any of hundreds or thousands of beings who are referred to as gods. Taking your claims to their logical conclusion suggests to me that everyone who has ever lived, except Christians with an Anselmian view of God, are atheists.
Well, believing that God HAS a physical location doesn't seem to me to be the same as thinking that God is CONFINED to a physical location - His power extends throughout the universe, and we say that having a physical body extends rather than limits His power, so a God without a body would not be one we would conceive to be "greater".
As for your other comment, I am not sure what distinction you are drawing between eternal and everlasting.
Well, believing that God HAS a physical location doesn't seem to me to be the same as thinking that God is CONFINED to a physical location - His power extends throughout the universe, and we say that having a physical body extends rather than limits His power, so a God without a body would not be one we would conceive to be "greater".
As for your other comment, I am not sure what distinction you are drawing between eternal and everlasting.
I wouldn't say that, for two reasons. First, an Anselmian conception of God isn't confined to Christianity - I would say that Islam has a pretty similar conception. Second, the world isn't divided neatly into theists and atheists. Someone may not believe in the God of classical theism, but that doesn't make them an atheist. I would certainly say that a polytheist is not a theist, except in a very loose sense, but she is not an atheist for all that.
Fair enough. I must say that to my mind, the notion that God has a location at all (which is other than here) seems to make him remote. To have a location is, in some sense, to be confined to that location - in the sense that one isn't in any alternative location, at least at that moment. If God is non-physical then he is no less right here than he is anywhere else. Whereas if God is literally a very, very long way away, then even if he is able to hear my prayers and respond to them without being hampered by the distance, that seems to me to make an emotional difference even if it doesn't make a practical one.
Perhaps "eternal" is the wrong word: I meant "atemporal", i.e. the difference between conceiving of God as filling time and conceiving of him as outside time altogether. But presumably you'll say that the latter doesn't seem any greater than the former. In which you may be right.
I would say that someone who believes in a God other than that of "classical" theism is still a theist - I really can't imagine why I would not call a polytheist a theist. Sure, in Western culture, tradition, and philosophy, there are certain constants that are held about God (even, apparently, among those who don't believe in God) but I don't see what makes those absolute definitions.
Well, as I said, His influence extends everywhere even though His physical body doesn't.
I wouldn't say we believe God is entirely atemporal, but He doesn't experience time the same way we do. But yes, I don't see why atemporality is inherently greater.
Camber
Resident Family Therapist
Plotinus, Why would God not being "here" make any emotional distance if He is omniscient? God doesn't have to be in a location to know intimately what is going on there.
It is the Greeks who gave us a view of God that is atemporal and acontextual, which I would argue does not necessarily fit with pre-Greek Biblical understandings of God (such as that he walked in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, and that he spoke with Moses face to face). In the LDS view, it was the Hellenization of Judeo-Christian theology (mixing it with Greek philosophy) that helped bring about the present confusion about the nature of God.
In the LDS view, centuries of debate and confusion were cleared up when Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, in a grove in 1820. Our understanding of God (i.e., as having a physical reality and not being just an amorphous being) begins from that revelatory experience, and in the LDS view is consistent with other Biblical figures who said that they saw God (i.e., Stephen, Ezekiel, Moses).
I can understand someone who is attached to another view of God saying that this sounds strange to them. To give some perspective, to my ears the Anselmian approach of first defining God and then checking to see if God is like that is pretty strange as well--to me it sounds like us making criteria rather than going to the source and finding out what His criteria are. Greek philosophers never claimed to have seen God, but decided based on reason that the divine must be atemporal and acontextual after they came to the conclusion that the pantheon of contextual and temporal gods of their culture were rubbish. Christian theologians came along and decided that the Greeks were on to something, and began dismissing scriptural references to God's physical reality as merely metaphorical. It would seem to me that going back to the source and seeing what prophets who experienced theophany described Him as would be more fruitful.
One aspect of the LDS view of God that this discussion seems to be missing is that although his physical body is in just one place at a time, we understand that His Spirit is able to extend to the entire universe. Not sure if that makes a difference for you, but we don't see God as limited by his physical body, but rather like Eran said, enhanced by it.
It is the Greeks who gave us a view of God that is atemporal and acontextual, which I would argue does not necessarily fit with pre-Greek Biblical understandings of God (such as that he walked in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, and that he spoke with Moses face to face). In the LDS view, it was the Hellenization of Judeo-Christian theology (mixing it with Greek philosophy) that helped bring about the present confusion about the nature of God.
In the LDS view, centuries of debate and confusion were cleared up when Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, in a grove in 1820. Our understanding of God (i.e., as having a physical reality and not being just an amorphous being) begins from that revelatory experience, and in the LDS view is consistent with other Biblical figures who said that they saw God (i.e., Stephen, Ezekiel, Moses).
I can understand someone who is attached to another view of God saying that this sounds strange to them. To give some perspective, to my ears the Anselmian approach of first defining God and then checking to see if God is like that is pretty strange as well--to me it sounds like us making criteria rather than going to the source and finding out what His criteria are. Greek philosophers never claimed to have seen God, but decided based on reason that the divine must be atemporal and acontextual after they came to the conclusion that the pantheon of contextual and temporal gods of their culture were rubbish. Christian theologians came along and decided that the Greeks were on to something, and began dismissing scriptural references to God's physical reality as merely metaphorical. It would seem to me that going back to the source and seeing what prophets who experienced theophany described Him as would be more fruitful.
One aspect of the LDS view of God that this discussion seems to be missing is that although his physical body is in just one place at a time, we understand that His Spirit is able to extend to the entire universe. Not sure if that makes a difference for you, but we don't see God as limited by his physical body, but rather like Eran said, enhanced by it.
Camber
Resident Family Therapist
Along those same lines, we wouldn't see Jesus as being limited or downgraded when he took on a physical body and condescended to live a human-like life. If we were to see the physical as inferior to the spiritual (or God as limited if He is in a physical body) then would it follow that Jesus was less god-like while incarnate? If God doesn't have a physical body, it would also make one wonder why Jesus would go through the bother of being resurrected after death--I mean, once he got free of the encumbrances of physicality, wouldn't He want to stay that way? Or was the resurrection just a trick or ploy to deceive his disciples, and then Jesus discarded that body after He ascended into heaven? Why go through the whole farce of letting his disciples touch his wounds and see him eat with them, if there is ultimately nothing physical about God?
In the LDS view, one of the purposes of Jesus was to come and show us what God is like. The two are one in nearly every meaningful sense--to know Him is to know God.
In the LDS view, one of the purposes of Jesus was to come and show us what God is like. The two are one in nearly every meaningful sense--to know Him is to know God.
Camber
Resident Family Therapist
There is an article that may interest Plotinus that may help to elucidate the LDS view of God as a temporal and contextual being, and how it differs with other views of God.
http://www.brentdslife.com/article/upload/relationality/Family Values and Relationality.pdf
It was written in 1998 by Brent Slife, a professor of psychology at BYU. He's not LDS, but much of what he says here is consistent with LDS perspectives. There are a few parts I would differ with, such as on p. 26 when he describes Christ as changeable--perhaps it would be clearer to say instead "able to respond to His people." An acontextual and atemporal god is one that stands apart from His people, does not bind Himself to them in covenant relationships, does not feel anything in response to them, is always the same regardless of them. If we are looking for an intimate God who responds to prayers, feels compassion for our sorrow, or even has an opinion at all about an individual, He must needs be a part of this time and context. Regardless of whether He has a physical body, I wouldn't want a god who stands apart from time and space.
http://www.brentdslife.com/article/upload/relationality/Family Values and Relationality.pdf
It was written in 1998 by Brent Slife, a professor of psychology at BYU. He's not LDS, but much of what he says here is consistent with LDS perspectives. There are a few parts I would differ with, such as on p. 26 when he describes Christ as changeable--perhaps it would be clearer to say instead "able to respond to His people." An acontextual and atemporal god is one that stands apart from His people, does not bind Himself to them in covenant relationships, does not feel anything in response to them, is always the same regardless of them. If we are looking for an intimate God who responds to prayers, feels compassion for our sorrow, or even has an opinion at all about an individual, He must needs be a part of this time and context. Regardless of whether He has a physical body, I wouldn't want a god who stands apart from time and space.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Much the same way as all of Mormonism?
Right . . . although we aren't saying that our religious claims are objectively historical facts.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
So the entire book of Mormon is a made up story to help people understand Smith's new approach to Christianity?
We are saying that it happened, literally; we are NOT saying that there exists objective historical evidence for this fact and that anyone who isn't Mormon is ignoring this fact. Belief in the Book of Mormon doesn't come from that source.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
It happened but there won't be evidence for it for whatever reason? I'm just not safe with that assumption as the Catholic church strives to give evidence of events.
We don't say, "X is a historical fact, thus you have to accept Mormonism." There are to my knowledge no such historical facts that would confirm really any religion, or any religion's claims to being true.
I'd imagine that there used to be a time when the lay-person conceived this as a 'world', not a 'universe'? Was there a thematic transition of the concept, historically? Is your interpretation (towards 'universe') common in your age group? In the older age groups?
Well, as far as I can tell it has always been understood to mean more like "everything we can observe astronomically" than " a single planet". When the doctrine first appeared scientific knowledge was more limited, and the existence of other galaxies wasn't know (and it clearly wasn't important enough an issue for God to reveal otherwise).
Yeah, that certainly answers the intent of my question. Do some people seem to think of it as a 'world', though? A doctrinal confusion, maybe based on age?
We aren't typically confused on the issue . . . it's others who are.
The word "world" has a lot of meanings.
The word "world" has a lot of meanings.
