Posted on 05/26/2009 10:55:59 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Lincoln Cannon recently left me the following comment:
I'd like to invite your feedback on the New God Argument (do a Google search). It's basically a moral argument for trust in the existence of beings that may qualify as gods from a Mormon perspective.
Lincoln Cannon and Joseph West, founders and directors of the Mormon Transhuman Association, presented the New God Argument for Sunstone in 2008. I've included the video presentation at the bottom of this page.
I was honored that Cannon would ask me about his argument, and overall I found it to be fair. By this, I mean that Cannon and West have constructed it very carefully and understand its limitations.
By way of background information, The Mormon Transhuman Association embraces an idea that Joseph Smith and other early LDS leaders taught, which is that God is an exhalted man.
God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! - Joseph Smith
According to this early belief, our God was able to advance until he attained his current status: God and creator of worlds. This teaching promises that the same is true for all of us, and that we can go on to do the same, perpetuating the cycle of building worlds and raising gods.
This particular belief often comes under heavy criticism from other Christians as being unbiblical, even heretical. Some Mormons have backed away from this teaching, insisting that it was never "official doctrine" and is open to interpretation. In 1997, President Gordon B. Hinckley appeared to distance himself from this teaching in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle:
Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, ``As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.
This only makes the Mormon Transhuman Association that much more interesting - as some Mormons distance themselves from this idea, others are openly embracing it. I would have once considered myself among the transhumans. I imagined that a being with advanced technology may well be indistinguishable from God, and could account for everything we see in religion.
So the New God Argument is the idea that if we accept a certain set of assumptions, it is reasonable to conclude that we are the product of an advanced civilization. Further, as we advance ourselves, we too may go on to build worlds. This logical argument, then, meshes nicely with the LDS belief.
It's a fun idea to wonder about, but the New God Argument can't really go beyond a "what if" scenario.
Logic follows a set structure, much like math. If we grant that certain assumptions are true, it is possible to arrive at a logically consistent conclusion. So even if the assumptions are false, the logic of the argument is still valid. Think of it like adding up some store inventory: we might count 24 boxes in one pile and 30 boxes in another pile, and if we do our math correctly conclude that there are 54 boxes. There's nothing wrong with the math, even if we had accidentally miscounted and there are in fact 18 boxes in one of the piles.
So we can logically justify any belief or claim that we want if we only begin with "If we can accept that..." Yes, if we accept one premise then another will logically follow. But that doesn't mean that the real world changes for us.
Cannon and West recognize this, so they offer a reason to accept some of those assumptions. They suggest that we should accept them because they're preferable. It's preferable to believe that advanced civilizations will not go extinct because if they do, it becomes more difficult to argue that we might one day go on to become technologically advanced gods ourselves. It's preferable to believe there are many advanced civilizations in the universe, because if there aren't, it becomes more difficult to argue that we were created by one.
As much as we might want to accept the assumptions that not only will we survive, but the universe is populated with advanced beings, there just aren't many reasons to do so.
The Drake equation is an attempt at estimating the number of intelligent civilizations in the universe. Estimates vary widely because there are several unknowns in the equation - we can only make guesses. But the Rare Earth hypothesis is an attempt at narrowing down some of those estimates. After we've ruled out all of the galaxies that don't contain any of the chemistry needed for life, all of the dead regions of galaxies that couldn't support or maintain life, all of the stars that burn too fast or too violently to support life, all of the stars that are binary systems that might make stable planetary orbits difficult, much less suitable for life, we're down to only a few percent of life sustaining stars. Of those, only a small fraction will happen to have the right kind of planet with the right kind of conditions to develop any kind of life. Of those, only a small fraction will be stable enough for a long enough period of time to allow advanced beings to evolve. Our own galaxy, with some 400 billion stars, might only host half a dozen intelligent civilizations. And they very well may be around for only a brief flash of time, dying off nearly as fast as they come into existence.
The New God Argument suggests that we might all be in a simulation as virtual beings, and that God would also be a simulation running in yet another simulation running in yet another. Cannon and West reference a quote from Richard Dawkins where he suggests that such a thing could be possible.
The point Dawkins was making, though, is that even if we allow for such a possibility, at some point we must get to a "real" universe where the very first computer programmer created the very first simulation. And that this being would have come about by natural means, through an evolutionary process.
Occam's Razor suggests that if it is possible for a natural universe to create an advanced civilization through natural means, we ought to just cut out the middle-man and assume that's us. We have no reason to suppose we're in a simulation, and everything we have available to us tells us we're in a real, natural world.
It's true that if an advanced civilization could create a simulation indistinguishable from the natural universe, we very well may be in one. We may be brains in a jar, or batteries for robots. We can speculate about some meta-reality above our own, whether it be a computer program or an alternate dimension, but there's no reason to think any of them might be true. Without any evidence, even if we are in a simulation, it's more reasonable to assume that we aren't.
Indeed, without any evidence, we can't distinguish any of these possibilities. It may be that we are just feeding electrical energy into the robots that rule the planet. This isn't any more or less likely than any other simulation we might suggest.
But if we grant that this could all be the case, that we are the created beings of a benevolent civilization, we can't make any connection to any current theology or god. Faith, Priesthood, Temple ceremonies, prayer, worship, abstaining from coffee - virtually none of what we associate with religion would or even should have anything to do with whatever technologically advanced being created us. To their credit, I believe Cannon and West understand this.
Ultimately, I believe that the argument is as they themselves describe it: a tool to ground our faith rationally. It serves as an intellectual bridge that connects the faith we want with the reality we have. But however sound the logic itself might be, it is founded on assumptions that would be irrational to accept. These assumptions add an infinite amount of complexity to a universe that could be explained far more simply and elegantly. They do not answer any questions or resolve any issues except: "How can I fit my existing belief in God with science?"
I don’t know how many YOU have. You ducked the question, as usual.
What do they do about god's god? If their god is an exalted man, he had to be created. Would that god not be before him? If god is the father, is god's father not the LDS “grandfather” and worthy of respect?
before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me!” (Is. 43:10).
Plus a couple of bonus verse for fun...
“I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is no one like me” (Is. 46:9).
“the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him” (Deut. 4:35).
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1;17)
I know, details details...
Did you refer to the ORIGINAL manuscripts to assure that you are correct?
Oh, yeah, I forgot. They are all gone.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/43
If is it good enough to work hand in hand with the BOM and the verse as I provided comes from the LDS.org site of official scripture, seems it should suffice....
. . . as far as it is translated correctly.
Are you saying it isn't?
So why would the LDS use a “mistranslated” version as scripture.
That’s rather odd, especially for such a organized and scholarly bunch.
Can you prove it is?
It’s as good as any.
You truly don't know how many "gods" Christians have? (Is that representative of other Mormons, too?)
Allow me to answer by citing the Bible: 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Cor. 8:5-6)
By nature, Jesus is this same God!
Now...how does the apostle Paul further elaborate in order to distinguish "so-called gods" who are part of "many 'gods' and many 'lords'" from the "one God for us?" Well, flip on over to Gal. 4:8:
Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods (Galatians 4:8)
A "god" can be your "stomach" -- says Paul in Phil. 3:19.
It can be $.
It can be the winner of American Idol.
It can be your fave sports team or sports hero.
It can be your govt. who provides for you.
It can be a rogue judge who believes he has all authority to rule on all manner of things.
The Bible says the usurper, Satan, is a "god of this world" (But you don't think Satan is part of the Mormon pantheon of the "council of gods" out there? Or do you?)
All of these are part of the vast umbrella of "gods many and lords many" ... but NONE of these qualify as a true God because they are NOT God by nature!
There's always only been one true God by nature. And there always will be only one true God by nature.
All of the others identified as "gods" are either...
...(a) entities with some of His attributes acting in his authorized authority -- beings who are not by nature divine...example: the wicked human judges in Ps. 82 -- men who die;
...(b) false pretenders or things (idols) who/which have people worship them, pray to them, say incantations to, etc. Example: 2 Cor. 4:4: Satan, the "god" of this world.
...(c) As a point of clarification -- the only "Persons" not covered under (a) and (b) are the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, who each have Full Attributes of divinity & who have always been of divine nature/substance/essence, & are so unified with the Father that they are more defined identity-wise by that unity than they are by their individual "Persons."
(I mean you don't criticize Mrs. So&So for being known more by her last name of So&So than you do her first name, do you? Mrs. So&So hasn't lost her personal distinct identity; she's simply one with her husband -- and they share that intimacy, oneness & that name identity! If that's true of a given wife, how much more unified is our God!)
Yes.
Your church uses it, accepts it and then contradicts it.
Seems a bit strange they would bother to begin with.
Why, then, would Lds also offer free KJV Bibles in TV commercials like they have? (That, too, is rather odd.)
Mormon scholars accept the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls
The text of Isaiah from the cave at Qumran had actually been copied about 100 B.C., as Professor Albright had been first to recognize ... with the discovery of the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah we have a Hebrew text of the Bible.... And the remarkable and wonderful fact is that ancient scroll of Isaiah, just like the book of the prophet in any printed Bible, whether in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, or any other language,... agrees with our present-day text.
Seventeen sheets of leather sewn together into a length of almost twenty-three feet—this must have been what the roll of the prophet looked like as it was handed to Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth so that he might read from it to the congregation. “And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias [Isaiah].” (Luke 4:16,17) “Every movement of Jesus’ hands is brought closer to us,” writes Professor Andre Parrot, “for we can still see on the reverse side of the leather the marks of the readers’ fingers” (The Bible as History, by Werner Keller, William Neil, trans., New York, 1957, pp.423-24).
Dr. Gleason L. Archer points out about the Isaiah scrolls that “even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 per cent of the text. The 5 per cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling” (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p.19).
Genesis 3:22
¶ And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Who is “us”.
95%.
The 5 per cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling”
So what exactly is your beef with Isaiah? Perhaps you can tell us exactly how it isn’t translated correctly since you are the one denigrating God’s Holy Bible.
The Trinity - but you knew that didn’t you?
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.