God is simple, not complex.

[Desert Snake]

Agree. It's not. Your argument is that atheists thinks God is complex, and that they're wrong. But you continue to avoid the issue that atheists only use this argument when a theist is positing this first.

In my experience, atheism tends to posit whatever argument is most expedient to 'win' the debate at hand, or the perceived 'larger debate' in a larger context of anti-theism or non-theism. In this sense, atheism for argumentation is not usually consistent.

 

[Ouroboros]

In my experience, atheism tends to posit whatever argument is most expedient to 'win' the debate at hand, or the perceived 'larger debate' in a larger context of anti-theism or non-theism. In this sense, atheism for argumentation is not usually consistent.

And neither is the Theist arguments. We're talking about things we don't know yet enough to explain. Not even physicists or astronomers have the answers to what was before big bang. It's all speculation from all sides.

 

[Gambit]

Is the panentheistic view that the universe is all there is?

No. The panentheistic God is transcendent as well as immanent.

I'm curious. Is there a difference between theism and panentheism, or are the the same?

Yes, there is a difference. The God of panentheism is more like Platos' demiurge, not truly a creator.

What about you, are you a panentheist?

I'm a theist, not a panentheist. But I'm conversant with Whitehead's process metaphysics - the most influential form of panentheism.

Yes. Very much so. It's an synonymous word for the totality of Reality (ultimate reality).

And how exactly does that differ from the physical universe?

Can panentheism?

No, the panentheistic God is not self-explanatory. That's why I favor the Thomistic God over the Whiteheadian God (although, I believe process metaphysics has a lot to offer).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm making a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one. (You apparently can't distinguish between the two.)

Please explain the difference.

 

[Gambit]

No, but then I'm not making any unsubstantiated assertions about "Buddha-nature", so this is a straw-man.

You have identified yourself as a Buddhist on your profile. So, I will assume you subscribe to a belief in Buddha-nature (since this is a basic belief in Buddhism).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You have identified yourself as a Buddhist on your profile. So, I will assume you subscribe to a belief in Buddha-nature (since this is a basic belief in Buddhism).

As a Buddhist I don't take on a set of beliefs, I investigate experience.

In any case your point is still a straw-man because I am not making unsubstantiated claims about Buddha-nature ( whatever ) in the way that you are making unsubstantiated claims about God.

 

[Desert Snake]

And neither is the Theist arguments. We're talking about things we don't know yet enough to explain. Not even physicists or astronomers have the answers to what was before big bang. It's all speculation from all sides.

I agree. Actually, theists tend to argue all the time, there isn't a provable authoritative position; the difference being, I accept that, some *theists don't.

*and atheists.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Actually, theists tend to argue all the time, there isn't a provable authoritative position; the difference being, I accept that, some theists don't.

The difficulty I see is that some theists get so attached to their beliefs that they present speculation as a statement of fact.
The truth here is that none of us really knows and it's all just speculation.

 

[shawn001]

Atheists seem to have this basic misunderstanding that God is complex. This is not true. God is simple, not complex. In theology, this is known as the doctrine of "divine simplicity." (This is why I can argue that God is the most parsimonious explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.)

"Atheists seem to have this basic misunderstanding that God is complex." ? What I am not an Atheist, but that is new to me and even to other religious

Atheists seem to have this basic misunderstanding that God is complex. This is not true. God is simple, not complex. In theology, this is known as the doctrine of "divine simplicity." (This is why I can argue that God is the most parsimonious explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.)

"In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts."

So much for God created man in his image without parts.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts."

So it's just a theological doctrine then? OK.

 

[shawn001]

So it's just a theological doctrine then? OK.

I didn't write it, just quoting the no parts.

"
Divine Simplicity
First published Mon Mar 20, 2006; substantive revision Fri Jan 2, 2015
According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, God is free of matter-form composition, potency-act composition, and existence-essence composition. There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is thus in a sense requiring clarification identical to each of his attributes, which implies that each attribute is identical to every other one. God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by beingomniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has as Augustine puts it in The City of God, XI, 10. As identical to each of his attributes, God is identical to his nature. And since his nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence. This is the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS). It is represented not only in classical Christian theology, but also in Jewish, Greek, and Islamic thought. It is to be understood as an affirmation of God's absolute transcendence of creatures. God is not only radically non-anthropomorphic, but radically non-creaturomorphic, not only in respect of the properties he possesses, but in his manner of possessing them. The simple God, we could say, differs in his very ontology from any and all created beings."

Divine Simplicity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I did notice this in the above "he possesses"

a He?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, just another theological theory really.

 

[Gambit]

If you said "I believe God is simple" based on a particular form of reasoning, that would be different, the problem here is that you claiming it as fact.

Religious-talk implies metaphysical belief, not the establishment of scientific fact. I would hope that you are smart enough to understand the difference. When I said in the OP that atheists have this basic misunderstanding that God is complex, I was merely suggesting that they are misrepresenting classical theology's understanding of God.

 

[Ouroboros]

Religious-talk implies metaphysical belief, not the establishment of scientific fact. I would hope that you are smart enough to understand the difference. When I said in the OP that atheists have this basic misunderstanding that God is complex, I was merely suggesting that they are misrepresenting classical theology's understanding of God.

Well, you have provided one of the best arguments against an intelligent designer so far.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Religious-talk implies metaphysical belief, not the establishment of scientific fact. I would hope that you are smart enough to understand the difference.

I'm smart enough to understand that metaphysical belief is just belief, and that it cannot be substantiated.

 

[we-live-now]

I see. I wouldn't quite put in those terms. But I think I get the gist.

Cool. I appreciate your openness to hear things through a different perspective.

 

[Shad]

We come to know God by way of analogy because we are attempting to describe the infinite from a finite perspective.

Any issue is nothing is identical to it's properties. Tall, loving, moral, etc do not make a human no more than perfect, morally good, etc make a God.

 

[Looncall]

I'm making a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one. (You apparently can't distinguish between the two.)

The trouble with metaphysical arguments is that they cannot be fact-checked. Very handy for religions.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If your conceive of God as not being conscious, then your conception does not qualify as a God-concept.

How so, particularly if you don't know if something is conscious or not? And there's this definition for God from Merriam-Webster:
"a person or thing of supreme value"; The supreme value being....Truth.

 

[viole]

Religious-talk implies metaphysical belief, not the establishment of scientific fact. I would hope that you are smart enough to understand the difference. When I said in the OP that atheists have this basic misunderstanding that God is complex, I was merely suggesting that they are misrepresenting classical theology's understanding of God.

So, do you guys agree that simple things can, in principle, generate complex ones?

Ciao

- viole