What is my mistake in this reasoning?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
If worshiping God is good, then being God is better.
But we should love the better or indeed the best.
But to be God is the best. So we should want to be God (impossible).

So where did I go wrong?
 
fakename said:
If worshiping God is good, then being God is better.
But we should love the better or indeed the best.
But to be God is the best. So we should want to be God (impossible).

So where did I go wrong?
Click to expand...
“So we should want to be (like) God.”
 
Let us approach God as the ultimate, which is what Catholics believe to be. So we can represent God as infinite. In order to be God you would have to become infinity, which would make God no longer God, but you God. (Two infinities cannot exist, one must be more or less than the other.)

So the goal would be to approach infinity, as close as you can. As the person said above, be like God. That’s what divinization is all about.
 
fakename said:
If worshiping God is good, then being God is better.
But we should love the better or indeed the best.
But to be God is the best. So we should want to be God (impossible).

So where did I go wrong?
Click to expand...
We should love the better or best of our own kind. Otherwise, if a man, why not want to be the best woman, and vice versa? If a human, why not want to be the best dog or cat? We cannot be the best of everything. We should strive to be the best human that we can.
 
fakename said:
If worshiping God is good, then being God is better.
But we should love the better or indeed the best.
But to be God is the best. So we should want to be God (impossible).

So where did I go wrong?
Click to expand...
I agree with the two posters before me, and I think also that the jump between the first and second thought process isn’t as self-evident as you make it seem, and would require further proof (insofar from a Catholic perspective, and certain moral respectives, we should love all, and it is a Christian teaching to love the worst, for they need it most).
 
fakename said:
If worshiping God is good, then being God is better.
But we should love the better or indeed the best.
But to be God is the best. So we should want to be God (impossible).

So where did I go wrong?
Click to expand...
The problem is an unproven primary premise: “If worshiping God is good, then being God is better.”

The whole argument then becomes a form of begging the question.
 
porthos11 said:
The problem is an unproven primary premise: “If worshiping God is good, then being God is better.”
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s like a wife saying, “If loving my husband is good, then being my husband is better.” It just doesn’t follow. Loving someone and being someone have no connection, one does not build on the other; and likewise, worshipping God and being God.
 
fakename said:
If worshiping God is good, then being God is better.
But we should love the better or indeed the best.
But to be God is the best. So we should want to be God (impossible).

So where did I go wrong?
Click to expand...
I think you went wrong on that last one. As humans, we can never be God. Trying to be is futile. However, you’re quite close. We should try to be like him.
 
user "porthos11":
The problem is an unproven primary premise: “If worshiping God is good, then being God is better.”

The whole argument then becomes a form of begging the question.
Click to expand...
If the premise is proven then I still think it begs the question. Is that true?

Still I can’t shake the feeling that there’s some argument that reaches my above conclusion (false conclusion).

Perhaps the participated good is not as good as the actual subsisting good, and you always want to be better, then it would only be rational to want to be the good itself no matter the cost (since it’s of infinite value).

But that’s just saying that we should do a good thing because it’s good which is circular.

However let me say that the thing that is participating in good is different from that which is actually good, so that the argument is not circular since it ends in two different “goods”.

So I ask again: what’s wrong with saying " if the participated good is not as good as the actual subsisting good, and you always want to be better, then it would only be rational to want to be the good itself no matter the cost (since it’s of infinite value)."
 
bmullins said:
Let us approach God as the ultimate, which is what Catholics believe to be. So we can represent God as infinite. In order to be God you would have to become infinity, which would make God no longer God, but you God. (Two infinities cannot exist, one must be more or less than the other.)

So the goal would be to approach infinity, as close as you can. As the person said above, be like God. That’s what divinization is all about.
Click to expand...
Actually three infinities exist side-by-side. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I guess if you call them one God then you have one infinity. Yet, as three distinct persons they are each equal to eachother and therefore, infinite. But let’s just say they are God and they are infinite by themselves and together.
 
jpjd said:
Exactly. It’s like a wife saying, “If loving my husband is good, then being my husband is better.” It just doesn’t follow. Loving someone and being someone have no connection, one does not build on the other; and likewise, worshipping God and being God.
Click to expand...
We could look at it in a different perspective.

“Worshipping God and being God.”

One seeks holiness and the other is holy. It is good to seek holiness but it is better to be holy. One seeks and the other is the source (origin).

Perhaps the analogy of “loving your husband and being your husband” does not compare to God?

It is like Jesus as the bridegroom, through the holy spirit, we come into union with him. It may be good to be the bride that seeks him, however, it is better to be the bridegroom who is the source of the Spirit. If it is not better to be God then why give him the glory of the Union between our souls and his Spirit?
 
fakename said:
If the premise is proven then I still think it begs the question. Is that true?

Still I can’t shake the feeling that there’s some argument that reaches my above conclusion (false conclusion).

Perhaps the participated good is not as good as the actual subsisting good, and you always want to be better, then it would only be rational to want to be the good itself no matter the cost (since it’s of infinite value).

But that’s just saying that we should do a good thing because it’s good which is circular.

However let me say that the thing that is participating in good is different from that which is actually good, so that the argument is not circular since it ends in two different “goods”.

So I ask again: what’s wrong with saying " if the participated good is not as good as the actual subsisting good, and you always want to be better, then it would only be rational to want to be the good itself no matter the cost (since it’s of infinite value)."
Click to expand...
Only God is good. No matter how hard you try you can never be as good as God. We, as humans, don’t have the capacity for such goodness. There is nothing wrong with striving for such goodness; and you can make great leaps into that goodness, however, God is all-holy and holiness surpasses even the supernatural. We have to be as children in his eyes.

So basically what I am saying is that what you suggest is impossible for us unless God wills it.
 
porthos11 said:
The problem is an unproven primary premise: “If worshiping God is good, then being God is better.”

The whole argument then becomes a form of begging the question.
Click to expand...
jpjd said: “Exactly. It’s like a wife saying, “If loving my husband is good, then being my husband is better.” It just doesn’t follow. Loving someone and being someone have no connection, one does not build on the other; and likewise, worshipping God and being God.”

I agree with both responses.

The attempt to reason has a False start. The premise needs to be reset.

Also the “then” part could have been anything. “If worshiping God is good, then what?” And does THAT what necessarily depend on first worshiping God? God is God and not because being God is better than worshiping Himself.

I also see a ‘good’, and ‘better’ and it leaves me wanting to know what would be 'best."

Cannot attempt do sound reasoning from a false start.
 
fakename said:
If worshiping God is good, then being God is better.
But we should love the better or indeed the best.
But to be God is the best. So we should want to be God (impossible).

So where did I go wrong?
Click to expand...
Nowhere. Check the CCC: It is the vocation of every human being to show forth the image of Christ.

aka: God

Read Scripture, what did Paul say? It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me.

Be God.
 
user "Sacred Heart":
Actually three infinities exist side-by-side. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I guess if you call them one God then you have one infinity. Yet, as three distinct persons they are each equal to eachother and therefore, infinite. But let’s just say they are God and they are infinite by themselves and together.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it would be more correct to say that as God the three persons are equal but as persons they are different. So it’s not like 3 infinities exist which is impossible in nature.
 
user"Grateful Fred":
agree with both responses.

Also the “then” part could have been anything. “If worshiping God is good, then what?” And does THAT what necessarily depend on first worshiping God? God is God and not because being God is better than worshiping Himself.

I also see a ‘good’, and ‘better’ and it leaves me wanting to know what would be 'best."

Cannot attempt do sound reasoning from a false start.
Click to expand...
Another post gave a pretty good answer:
user "Sacred_Heart":
We could look at it in a different perspective.

“Worshipping God and being God.”

One seeks holiness and the other is holy. It is good to seek holiness but it is better to be holy. One seeks and the other is the source (origin).

It is like Jesus as the bridegroom, through the holy spirit, we come into union with him. It may be good to be the bride that seeks him, however, it is better to be the bridegroom who is the source of the Spirit. If it is not better to be God then why give him the glory of the Union between our souls and his Spirit?
Click to expand...
So if God is so great, and we should want to be great things, then we should want to be God.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by user"Grateful Fred"
agree with both responses.

Also the “then” part could have been anything. “If worshiping God is good, then what?” And does THAT what necessarily depend on first worshiping God? God is God and not because being God is better than worshiping Himself.

I also see a ‘good’, and ‘better’ and it leaves me wanting to know what would be 'best."

Cannot attempt do sound reasoning from a false start.
Another post gave a pretty good answer:
user "fakename":
Quote:
Originally Posted by user “Sacred_Heart”
We could look at it in a different perspective.

“Worshipping God and being God.”

One seeks holiness and the other is holy. It is good to seek holiness but it is better to be holy. One seeks and the other is the source (origin).

It is like Jesus as the bridegroom, through the holy spirit, we come into union with him. It may be good to be the bride that seeks him, however, it is better to be the bridegroom who is the source of the Spirit. If it is not better to be God then why give him the glory of the Union between our souls and his Spirit?

So if God is so great, and we should want to be great things, then we should want to be God.
Click to expand...
Is the above question begging in anyway and why?
 
I admit that I am out of my league in trying to analyze two things put together. 1) there is the logical argument: whether is it sound reasoning and 2) wanting to be God.

There is only ONE God. I am not Him, nor do I want to be Him. I do, however want to be WITH Him.

It is good that I worship Him, but I also want to OBEY Him and DO HIS WILL. But it is false to think that I should want to be Him because being Him is better than worshiping Him. So the premise fails.

As for logical argument construction:

If DOING “A” is good,
Then BEING “B” is better

is a non-sequitor in my opinion. The Then statement simply does not follow the If statement. The Then statement is NOT dependent on the If Statement. For example:

If it is Monday
Then it must be January.

We can see that it being January is NOT dependent on it being Monday
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top