God is simple, not complex

[Thief]

How do you know this? You have simply made an assertion.

I read the link, but it isn't satisfying at all. It spends a lot of time trying to say what god is NOT. It does not matter to me what god is NOT, my question is what IS god, then? How and in what way does it exist?

you then must support your own belief.....that life is altogether physical and there can be no life after death.

 

[Reflex]

Okay, can you demonstrate that such a thing as "knowledge that is whole without parts" even exists? Show me an example of this in real life (and not hypothetical metaphysics stuff either). Even Dr. Craig is saying that things like ideas can be complex, which entails that any mind which has ideas would add the complexity of those ideas onto itself. His claim that the mind is simple is itself suspect. If he assumes that a mind is conscious awareness and nothing more, then that might actually make sense. Once you start giving this mind other attributes, however, such as reasoning and memory, you add to its complexity. It is not as simple as it was when it was purely consciousness, so it becomes more complex as it gains more abilities.

I am aware of Dr. Craig's and Dr. Plantinga's disagreements. However, in my opinion, they are successfully refuted by Dr. Feser and Dr. Dolezal. The latter earned his doctorate, I believe, with God Without Parts. Interestingly, on the cover is an illustration of an analogy I've used often: light going through a prism. To be sure, however, their rejoinders are not so much refutations as in-depth explanations.

"God is without parts" means God is without properties or attributes. That is to say, God's existence and essence are identical. To reiterate what I said in a previous post: "In the absence of divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts. Mind is unifying of divergencies, but it simply cannot grasp the concept of Ultimate Reality without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. And that's where the difficulty lies. To say God has a "mind" is only to say his character has the quality of something like what we call mind if he were indeed comprised of parts (or properties) as we are comprised of parts." But after all is said and done, "It matters little what idea of the Father you may entertain as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the ideal of his infinite and eternal nature.”

Just to clarify. From Watts' argument, it can be seen that to deny the actuality of God's existence is to reject reason (and scientific principles I won't go into) and invoke the magic of an effect entirely absent in its cause. The fact that one disagrees with his conclusions or methodology does not negate the logic attending it. It shows that theists can summarily dismiss atheism in the same fashion atheists very often dismiss theism and be confident that it is logical and reasonable to do so. Is this being "dogmatic?" Yes, but dogma serves to delineate between schools of thought and avoid confusion. (Read Paul Tillich's A History of Christian Thought for a detailed discussion regarding dogma.)

 

[Gambit]

Okay, can you demonstrate that such a thing as "knowledge that is whole without parts" even exists? Show me an example of this in real life (and not hypothetical metaphysics stuff either).

Self-awareness is knowledge that is whole and without parts.

Even Dr. Craig is saying that things like ideas can be complex, which entails that any mind which has ideas would add the complexity of those ideas onto itself. His claim that the mind is simple is itself suspect. If he assumes that a mind is conscious awareness and nothing more, then that might actually make sense. Once you start giving this mind other attributes, however, such as reasoning and memory, you add to its complexity. It is not as simple as it was when it was purely consciousness, so it becomes more complex as it gains more abilities.

I am not attributing God's mind with memory and discursive reasoning. You are.

 

[psychoslice]

and in the hour of your last breath.....what lays ahead of you?

Ha, not what you want me to believe that's for sure.

 

[LuisDantas]

and in the hour of your last breath.....what lays ahead of you?

Death?

 

[Pudding]

you then must support your own belief.....that life is altogether physical and there can be no life after death.

Strawmen argument, false dichotomy and shifting burden of proof.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Because "the truth," besides referring to truth, is also used to refer to that which is true.

Truth itself is neither objective nor subjective.

Knowledge can only be objective Truth, otherwise, all the different versions would clash and conflict. While art/beauty can only be subjective Truth because it is an individual creation, and can only be appreciated or hated or dishonest, individually. Then there's love and justice which are not "neither", but both.

It's "is" and "is not" that makes things complicated. Do away with those, and you've simplified.

They are judgement. Judge not.

Without judgement, there is no life. It is only where judgement is corrupt that we fail.

What these terms mean to me might not be what they mean to you. That's why I am asking you to clarify.

See above.

The way I see it, deities can have many interesting attributes.

It turns out that literal existence is not a particularly useful one for them.

What is a non-literal existence and how can it be useful for "them" or anyone?

 

[Gambit]

Knowledge can only be objective Truth, otherwise, all the different versions would clash and conflict. While art/beauty can only be subjective Truth because it is an individual creation, and can only be appreciated or hated or dishonest, individually. Then there's love and justice which are not "neither", but both.

The knower, the known, and the knowing are one in truth even as the lover, the beloved, and the loving are one in truth.

How's that?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think for most of us, it's pretty darned obvious what exists in the apparent world and what exists in the otherworlds, even though the veil between them is paper-thin and easily brushed aside with a gentle breeze or the wave of a hand. I don't see this as a major point worth fussing about.

The distinction between real and imaginary isn't obvious to a child. For a child Santa is "real" for a while, then they realise it's a fictional character, just a figment of their imagination. For some people the belief in God lasts longer, but I still can't see a fundamental difference between a child's belief in Santa and a child's belief in God.

I'm not sure what you mean by "otherworlds" here. Do you mean something which only exists in the imagination, or do you mean actual otherworlds, like different realms or something? First you say that the distinction between the real world and otherworlds is "damned obvious", then you imply that there is really no difference, so I am struggling to understand what you really mean.

 

[Pudding]

This is to correct a common misunderstanding that many atheists seem to have, namely, the mistaken belief that God is complex. God is simple, not complex. That's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence - for why there is something rather than nothing.

God is simple, not complex?
In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts ?

Is "God is simple because God is without parts" a beliefs?
Is "the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts" a beliefs or a fact base on that doctrine?

I suspect it's all just speculation and beliefs... which cannot be proven.
Or some personal experience which cannot be demonstate its validity.
Thanks for sharing your speculation or beliefs or personal experience which i've no idea whether it's true or not. edit

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The knower, the known, and the knowing are one in truth even as the lover, the beloved, and the loving are one in truth.

How's that?

Knowledge exists whether we know it or not. Love requires lovers.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is a non-literal existence and how can it be useful for "them" or anyone?

When it comes to deities, they are real as symbolic constructs, as motivators, as convenient names and personifications for certain sets of values and expectations.

Come to think of it, they are not entirely different from countries, except that countries have some elements that do exist in the literal sense.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you're a Star Wars fan, why on earth would you take any of that seriously if it is not real to you?

Star Wars is science-fiction, the operative word being "fiction". Are you saying there is no difference between fact and fiction?

 

[Thief]

Star Wars is science-fiction, the operative word being "fiction". Are you saying there is no difference between fact and fiction?

I like science fiction.....soooo much theology is used in the plot!

 

[Thief]

Strawmen argument, false dichotomy and shifting burden of proof.

your half of the discussion needs support just as my side does.

life after death and you say ...nay?

support that.

 

[Willamena]

Knowledge can only be objective Truth, otherwise, all the different versions would clash and conflict. While art/beauty can only be subjective Truth because it is an individual creation, and can only be appreciated or hated or dishonest, individually. Then there's love and justice which are not "neither", but both.

We use truth entirely objectively, but that's only because subjectively the verb "use" doesn't apply. In itself, truth is neither subjective nor objective--subjective and objective are views and attitudes that we take towards things. When we talk about objective, we are adopting the view of truth. Everything can be viewed objectively or subjectively--the "thing in itself" is neither.

The truth of the subjective is the truth about (for instance) what things mean to us uniquely, how we relate to them or how they relate to other things. Everything objective is, by definition, true and can be thrust into a proposition. If it's truth that, "I find that painting beautiful," that's objective. The subjective is the experience of meaningfulness and relating to a thing.

Without judgement, there is no life. It is only where judgement is corrupt that we fail.

Without judgement, there is no life to talk about. But there is the experience of life.

 

[Thief]

Death?

are you expecting to lose your mind?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

are you expecting to lose your mind?

Are you expecting to keep yours?

 

[Parsimony]

I am aware of Dr. Craig's and Dr. Plantinga's disagreements. However, in my opinion, they are successfully refuted by Dr. Feser and Dr. Dolezal. The latter earned his doctorate, I believe, with God Without Parts. Interestingly, on the cover is an illustration of an analogy I've used often: light going through a prism. To be sure, however, their rejoinders are not so much refutations as in-depth explanations.

"God is without parts" means God is without properties or attributes. That is to say, God's existence and essence are identical. To reiterate what I said in a previous post: "In the absence of divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts. Mind is unifying of divergencies, but it simply cannot grasp the concept of Ultimate Reality without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. And that's where the difficulty lies. To say God has a "mind" is only to say his character has the quality of something like what we call mind if he were indeed comprised of parts (or properties) as we are comprised of parts." But after all is said and done, "It matters little what idea of the Father you may entertain as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the ideal of his infinite and eternal nature.”

Just to clarify. From Watts' argument, it can be seen that to deny the actuality of God's existence is to reject reason (and scientific principles I won't go into) and invoke the magic of an effect entirely absent in its cause. The fact that one disagrees with his conclusions or methodology does not negate the logic attending it. It shows that theists can summarily dismiss atheism in the same fashion atheists very often dismiss theism and be confident that it is logical and reasonable to do so. Is this being "dogmatic?" Yes, but dogma serves to delineate between schools of thought and avoid confusion. (Read Paul Tillich's A History of Christian Thought for a detailed discussion regarding dogma.)

If God is without attributes or properties then it cannot be said that He is powerful, good, eternal, etc. as these are attributes/properties.

Self-awareness is knowledge that is whole and without parts.

Can you demonstrate this to be the case?

I am not attributing God's mind with memory and discursive reasoning. You are.

So God cannot reason or remember things? Interesting.

 

[Thief]

Are you expecting to keep yours?

yes!
I see no justification that we live to form mind and heart.....to be unique....
and then lose it all in the dust.