A question of logic: Is this valid..?

[2+2=5]

First off, I have *no* intention to argue about this, I simply want to know if this is a valid argument of if the logic is flawed. I got this article off another website and just thought I would post it here and hear what y’all think.
Thank you for any insight!

________________________________________________________

A logical proof that Mormonism is false

Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god (this is called exaltation) and came to this world with his goddess wife. He was able to become a god because he followed the laws and ordinances of the god he served on another world. That god in turn was exalted by his god, who was exalted by his god, ad infinitum. In other words, there is a progression of gods being formed as far back as you look in time.
Truth does not contradict itself. If I gave two statements about a subject and the two statements contradicted each other, then you would know something was wrong. The law of non contradiction states that something cannot be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. In other words, truth does not contradict itself. This is basic logic. That which is true is internally consistent and contains no logical impossibilities. If something does contain a logical impossibility, then it cannot be true.
Mormonism teaches an infinite regression of causes. This means that it teaches that each god was made a god by a previous god. This means that as far back as you look in time, this process has always been occurring. This means that from an infinity of time in the past, the Mormon plan of exaltation (become gods) has been in effect. The only problem is that this is logically impossible. Since it is logically impossible, this means that Mormonism is false. Let's look closer.
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes. It is logically impossible. Why? Because you can not cross an infinity.
In other words, in order for us to get to the present state of this god on this planet, there would have had to be an infinite number of exaltations in the past. But, this cannot be because in order to get to the present, you would have to transverse an infinity of exaltations and that is impossible since you cannot transverse an infinity -- if you could cross (transverse) an infinity of time, then it isn't infinite. Therefore, the Mormon system of infinite regressions of exaltations to godhood is impossible and Mormonism is proven false. Simple.

___________________________________________________


or is it that simple..

 

[Onesiphorus]

________________________________________________________

A logical proof that Mormonism is false

...
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes. It is logically impossible.
...
___________________________________________________

There can only be one first cause (by definition). Having infinite causes (gods) is not logically possible.

So, "yes" this is a logical argument... However, the rest of this statement is pretty much babble. I'm not even sure half of that stuff is taught/believed by mormons.

 

[Theway]

First off, I have *no* intention to argue about this, I simply want to know if this is a valid argument of if the logic is flawed. I got this article off another website and just thought I would post it here and hear what y’all think.
Thank you for any insight!

________________________________________________________

A logical proof that Mormonism is false

Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god (this is called exaltation) and came to this world with his goddess wife. He was able to become a god because he followed the laws and ordinances of the god he served on another world. That god in turn was exalted by his god, who was exalted by his god, ad infinitum. In other words, there is a progression of gods being formed as far back as you look in time.
Truth does not contradict itself. If I gave two statements about a subject and the two statements contradicted each other, then you would know something was wrong. The law of non contradiction states that something cannot be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. In other words, truth does not contradict itself. This is basic logic. That which is true is internally consistent and contains no logical impossibilities. If something does contain a logical impossibility, then it cannot be true.
Mormonism teaches an infinite regression of causes. This means that it teaches that each god was made a god by a previous god. This means that as far back as you look in time, this process has always been occurring. This means that from an infinity of time in the past, the Mormon plan of exaltation (become gods) has been in effect. The only problem is that this is logically impossible. Since it is logically impossible, this means that Mormonism is false. Let's look closer.
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes. It is logically impossible. Why? Because you can not cross an infinity.
In other words, in order for us to get to the present state of this god on this planet, there would have had to be an infinite number of exaltations in the past. But, this cannot be because in order to get to the present, you would have to transverse an infinity of exaltations and that is impossible since you cannot transverse an infinity -- if you could cross (transverse) an infinity of time, then it isn't infinite. Therefore, the Mormon system of infinite regressions of exaltations to godhood is impossible and Mormonism is proven false. Simple.

___________________________________________________


or is it that simple..

The problem with this post is that most, (I'd say about 90%) is not doctrine, and is based on people in the church who want to apply their logic to known doctrine or to God's understanding.
You therefore are trying to create a fact from a speculation and then say, because we now have a fact the speculation is wrong. If the speculation is wrong your facts or logic is wrong.

 

[Swart]

First off, I have *no* intention to argue about this, I simply want to know if this is a valid argument of if the logic is flawed. I got this article off another website and just thought I would post it here and hear what y’all think.
Thank you for any insight!

Viewing from a strictly analytical standpoint. The argument is false because of a combination of Argumentum ad Logicum, Circular Logic and Affirmation of the Consequent.

Combinatorially, it works as follows:

1. Position is presented as an axiom for LDS belief when it may not necessarily be considered so. (Strawman creation)
2. An argument for the position is discredited, and the position of the consequent is therfore affirmed. (Affirmation of the consequent)
3. The assumption is made that since one argument has been discredited and it's consequent has therefore been affirmed by discrediting the argument (Circular Logic), all other arguments have been discredited. (Argumentum ad Logicum)
4. Essentially the conclusion is part of the premise, despite the initial premise of no infinite regressions being correct. However the REASON there are no infinite regressions is because of our definitions of infinity and the axiomatic statement that there can be no infinite regressions. Essentially, it is a true statement because we have defined the statement to be true, not because it has been proven.

It is difficult logic to follow and it took me a little while to unravel the threads, but that essentially is it. When it comes down to it, most logically fallacies lie in their underlying definitions. Any statement that spends a lot of time setting up the preliminary conditions will usually contain solid statements founded upon a sandy foundation.

 

[GOD'S ARMY]

I also agree that this is gibberish, but let me ask, what is the difference between an infinite number of gods and one god who is infinite? That is, if one God can exist infinitely, why can't an infinite number of gods create an infinite number of gods....infinitely?

Still, with that said, the argument is based on assumptions and is ridiculous.

 

[2+2=5]

Thank you all for your insight!


The rest of the article is as follows--
________________________________________

What is the truth?
Okay, so if the Mormon principle of eternal regression of exaltations is logically impossible, then what is the truth?
The truth is that there is a single uncaused cause. Logic necessitates that there must be a single being who is without beginning and upon which time has no meaning or affect who is the single uncaused cause. The Bible says that God is unchanging (unlike the Mormon god) and that he has been God from eternity. This is exactly what logic necessitates as being true. The God of Christianity is not an exalted man from another planet with a goddess wife. The God of Christianity has always been God and has never been anything else.
Check out the following verses.
• "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed," (Mal. 3:6).
• "Before the mountains were born or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God," (Psalm 90:2).
What is sad is that this simple logical proof, and it is a proof that Mormonism is false, will mean basically nothing to those whose spiritual eyes have been blinded by the god of this world.
• "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God," (2 Cor. 4:3-4).

______________________________________




PS

Still, with that said, the argument is based on *assumptions*

Bear with my ignorance; but could you elaborate?

 

[Nehi]

why can't an infinite number of gods create an infinite number of gods....infinitely?

Is a created "god" God? Or is it an idol?

~ NEHI (Worshipper of the uncaused cause -- the Triune God )

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

The question we should ask our Mormon friends here is... do you believe that there was a "first god"?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The question we should ask our Mormon friends here is... do you believe that there was a "first god"?

Yes, it would help very much if we eliminated straw man arguments, and allowed them to speak for themselves. Then we can talk about truth instead of speculation

 

[fatboys]

The question we should ask our Mormon friends here is... do you believe that there was a "first god"?

FB: It is the "which came first" game. We do not have all the truth. We do not have all the answers. From our point of view, God has always existed. God had no beginning and will have no end. I think what is upsetting to me at least is that you put forward opinion as if it is fact. {edited by MOD} I know that what I believe is of God. I have did my best as has others to express your views, to help in understanding why we believe that this is so. And I don't expect anyone to say, oh Fatboys said this so it must be true. But I did not come to my conclusions on the faith of others. I studied out in my mind, and pondered what I had studied, and then prayed to God for truth. God revealed truth to me. Just as God has revealed to anyone else who is sincere in wanting to know any truth.

So presenting what you say is Mormon logic has to first be based on what we believe to be doctrinally sound. Again we do not have all the truth. But we believe that more truth has been revealed threw modern prophets to give us a more clear understanding. There are ex members of the church who have taken statement made by leaders of the church to say that every word from their mouth must be pure revelation. They take these bits and pieces and focus on this and leave everything else they men have said which teach the opposite understanding. So they pick and choose what they want to believe. Anti's do the same thing. They only pick what promotes their agenda, which is to promote what was never doctrine, or was accepted as doctrine in the church, even though it may have been said by a church leader. The church was new for these early leaders, and many times the speculated on what they figured out in their own minds makes the pieces of the puzzle looked like. Once they gained more knowledge the picture looked different. I personally have taught things to investigators that I thought was correct, but later found out that it was wrong. I did not do this on purpose, but only because I did not have the more complete picture. And as I learn the gospel, my views continue to change. Now we are not talking about earth shattering doctrines, but pieces that I had not fit in the right place.

The difficult thing here is that many are trying to fit the puzzle to gether without all the pieces. And then try to fit pieces from other puzzles and force them to what you believe it should be. You believe that you have a complete understanding of what the picture is suppose to be from the LDS view when you don't even believe what you see. Anyway, it would be great to have a dicussion about any of these specualtions as long as you understand that it is not doctrines the church teaches. I am a great speculator. But don't promote this as what we believe.

 

[fatboys]

I also agree that this is gibberish, but let me ask, what is the difference between an infinite number of gods and one god who is infinite? That is, if one God can exist infinitely, why can't an infinite number of gods create an infinite number of gods....infinitely?

Still, with that said, the argument is based on assumptions and is ridiculous.

FB: Lets talk about this. From what I gather, you believe that God, who the scriptures say nothing is impossible, could not create another being who is perfect in deed and action. That this being could not be a god. Why? Is this not limiting God? I am not saying that God could or could not do this. I am asking why you think he could not.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

FB: It is the "which came first" game. We do not have all the truth. We do not have all the answers. From our point of view, God has always existed. God had no beginning and will have no end. ..

I thought, and correct me if I am wrong, that you believed your God was a man once - who became God? And that man (who would become God) was born in his world's "Pre Existence" - and thus having a beginning.



"As Man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."

Right?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

FB: Lets talk about this. From what I gather, you believe that God, who the scriptures say nothing is impossible, could not create another being who is perfect in deed and action. That this being could not be a god. Why? Is this not limiting God? I am not saying that God could or could not do this. I am asking why you think he could not.

Its not that we believe that He could not. We believe the scriptures when He said that He would not and did not.


"Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord: and beside Me there is no Saviour." Isaiah 43:10, 11. "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. . . Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any." Isaiah 44:6, 8.

 

[Mosiah10_5]

First off, I have *no* intention to argue about this, I simply want to know if this is a valid argument of if the logic is flawed. I got this article off another website and just thought I would post it here and hear what y’all think.
Thank you for any insight!

________________________________________________________

A logical proof that Mormonism is false

Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god (this is called exaltation) and came to this world with his goddess wife. He was able to become a god because he followed the laws and ordinances of the god he served on another world. That god in turn was exalted by his god, who was exalted by his god, ad infinitum. In other words, there is a progression of gods being formed as far back as you look in time.
Truth does not contradict itself. If I gave two statements about a subject and the two statements contradicted each other, then you would know something was wrong. The law of non contradiction states that something cannot be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. In other words, truth does not contradict itself. This is basic logic. That which is true is internally consistent and contains no logical impossibilities. If something does contain a logical impossibility, then it cannot be true.
Mormonism teaches an infinite regression of causes. This means that it teaches that each god was made a god by a previous god. This means that as far back as you look in time, this process has always been occurring. This means that from an infinity of time in the past, the Mormon plan of exaltation (become gods) has been in effect. The only problem is that this is logically impossible. Since it is logically impossible, this means that Mormonism is false. Let's look closer.
There cannot be an infinite regression of causes. It is logically impossible. Why? Because you can not cross an infinity.
In other words, in order for us to get to the present state of this god on this planet, there would have had to be an infinite number of exaltations in the past. But, this cannot be because in order to get to the present, you would have to transverse an infinity of exaltations and that is impossible since you cannot transverse an infinity -- if you could cross (transverse) an infinity of time, then it isn't infinite. Therefore, the Mormon system of infinite regressions of exaltations to godhood is impossible and Mormonism is proven false. Simple.

___________________________________________________


or is it that simple..

Besides the fact that this makes no sense whatsoever...
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach that God was once a man that is now exalted. Many think we do, but we do not teach that. It is not in our doctrine.

Secondly, this quote seems to be talking about infinity. Unless I am mistaken, then, this quote is not only proving LDS wrong, but mainstream Christianity as well! It seems to be saying that it is impossible to reach infinity, or cross it, and Christianity teaches that God is infinite, actually crossing it. I believe that, and that is why I find this quote funny. It is confusing in its wording, and seems to prove itself wrong (besides, regardless of what this person said-its God. He can go over infinity, having actually created the concept, can't He?)

God Bless,
Mosiah 10_5

 

[Mosiah10_5]

The question we should ask our Mormon friends here is... do you believe that there was a "first god"?

I think we have to define something here. Just go with me for a moment. Even if there were an infinite line of gods, one creating another, each one would have to be infinite, according to our definition, because they existed before their respective universe was even thought of, and will exist for all Eternity. So, for us, there is only One God. He is Eternal, regardless of His relationship to "other gods". He is the only God of this universe, this creation. While I do not accept that there were other gods, I do not throw this out, as I do not believe it contradicts that bible. The possibility exists, that there were gods before our God. However, I do not feel, nor believe that that fact takes away from the fact that God is Eternal, not created, and is our Creator.

I know that this doesn't make any sense, but I believe the bible. I accept that there are many things we don't understand with our human minds, and am therefore open to speculation. However, until new revelation is recieved, I will follow what we have. God is Eternal, the only God that I know.

God Bless,
Mosiah 10_5

 

[Mosiah10_5]

Its not that we believe that He could not. We believe the scriptures when He said that He would not and did not.


"Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord: and beside Me there is no Saviour." Isaiah 43:10, 11. "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. . . Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any." Isaiah 44:6, 8.

We believe this as well. Even if there was gods before our God, He is the only One that we deal with, He is our Creator, and there is no other for us. He is our God. The others are of no consequence to us, and do nothing for our salvation. There is only One. Even if there are many, there is only One.

I still believe in the God of us, our Creator, and will follow His scriptures, and what they say. They do not teach of other gods...yet.

God Bless,
Mosiah10_5

 

[Swart]

The question we should ask our Mormon friends here is... do you believe that there was a "first god"?

[Bible]1 Corinthians 8:6[/Bible]

We need to concern ourselves only with One God and One Jesus Christ. Anything else is simply idle speculation. And ONLY speculation at that.

So individual opinions may be discussed, but they cannot be considered the entire range of LDS thought.

 

[Nehi]

We need to concern ourselves only with One God and One Jesus Christ. Anything else is simply idle speculation. And ONLY speculation at that.

Is this idle speculation too?

"As man is, God once was. As God is, man
may become.''

Is this idle speculation too?

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret...

...Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves...

~ NEHI (There is a GOD, and He is not Me or Thee)

 

[Svt4Him]

Combinatorially, it works as follows:

1. Position is presented as an axiom for LDS belief when it may not necessarily be considered so. (Strawman creation)- it's based on the teachings, so it's better to say the teaching is false.
2. An argument for the position is discredited, and the position of the consequent is therfore affirmed. (Affirmation of the consequent)- are you sure about this one?
3. The assumption is made that since one argument has been discredited and it's consequent has therefore been affirmed by discrediting the argument (Circular Logic), all other arguments have been discredited. (Argumentum ad Logicum)- well actually it's a logical conclusion to the teaching that God was once a man.
4. Essentially the conclusion is part of the premise, despite the initial premise of no infinite regressions being correct. However the REASON there are no infinite regressions is because of our definitions of infinity and the axiomatic statement that there can be no infinite regressions. Essentially, it is a true statement because we have defined the statement to be true, not because it has been proven.- that is false.

It is difficult logic to follow and it took me a little while to unravel the threads, but that essentially is it. When it comes down to it, most logically fallacies lie in their underlying definitions. Any statement that spends a lot of time setting up the preliminary conditions will usually contain solid statements founded upon a sandy foundation.- and what is this? The argument was clearly laid out, the premise stated. If you want an 'this is not an official church doctrine' card, feel free to play it, but refrain from faulty 'fallacies'.

I also agree that this is gibberish, but let me ask, what is the difference between an infinite number of gods and one god who is infinite? That is, if one God can exist infinitely, why can't an infinite number of gods create an infinite number of gods....infinitely?

Still, with that said, the argument is based on assumptions and is ridiculous.

An infinite God is different because it assumes that God was always God. It doesn't assume that there was a first god that become god in order to create more gods, by following a set of rules.

 

[MormonFriend]

First off, I have *no* intention to argue about this, I simply want to know if this is a valid argument of if the logic is flawed. I got this article off another website and just thought I would post it here and hear what y’all think.
Thank you for any insight!

________________________________________________________

A logical proof that Mormonism is false

Mormonism teaches that God ....

.... Therefore, the Mormon system of infinite regressions of exaltations to godhood is impossible and Mormonism is proven false. Simple.

___________________________________________________


or is it that simple..

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

(1 Timothy 3:16)

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

(1 Corinthians 2:7)

It is most evident that God witholds knowledge from man. So, what are we to think when men try and discuss the things that are hidden from them?

We are taught in scripture how we can obtain these mysteries. If, and when these mysteries become understood by those who followed the admonitions of scripture, will they become understood by the general curious public? No! Each individual will need to follow the same spiritual regimen to obtain the correct perception, and see how the pieces of the puzzle are fitted. To apply mortal and carnal logic in a finite existence, to that which is spiritual and eternal in an infinite exitsence, is not possible. This is the basis of your "logical proof" article.