God is simple, not complex

[Quintessence]

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 already discussed that earlier. The difference is in how the relationship is understood. That difference is why some theists rightly get upset when people compare their gods to entities they have no significant relationship with. It's like comparing to someone's spouse as a stranger or acquaintance.

TI'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.

See here. But also, see below.

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

No. I'm saying they're both parts of reality. Though ultimately, we can't say if there's an true difference between the two, aside from one being in a different time/space than humans. From our limited perspective as humans, we usually perceive a strong difference, but for all we know, all these otherworlds do literally exist in parallel universes/dimensions. It's kinda like how if you've never actually been to the Great Wall of China, it might as well exist in the otherworlds to you until you visit the physical location. But unlike the Great Wall, humans, can't ever experience most (or arguably all) otherworlds in that literal way. I also find it good to bear in mind that human limitations necessarily mean our ways of classifying things as being on one side of the veil versus the other are necessarily idiosyncratic. I always ask "in what way can I experience X" rather than "is X real," then aim to respect the answers to that from others as well, given different folks put the veil down in different spots.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Why do you think that "simplest" necessarily means "most parsimonious"?

As an analogy, a perfect, uniformly dense sphere in the desert (a "simple" object by any reasonable definition), would be harder to reconcile with natural causes than a cactus in the desert would be.

 

[Willamena]

...

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

There is no such "knowledge," per se. It behooves us to find a new word.

 

[Willamena]

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.

The two prevalents. *polite applause*

 

[Willamena]

So God cannot reason or remember things? Interesting.

If God is, as they say, present throughout all moments, what use is reason or memory?

 

[Reflex]

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

That's why it's allegorical rather than univocal. Thomas Aquinas knew the difference very well.

 

[LuisDantas]

are you expecting to lose your mind?

Do I get to find it before dying then? According to some that would be a welcome change.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

There is no justification. Nor any need for one.

Things are as they are.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No. I'm saying they're both parts of reality. Though ultimately, we can't say if there's an true difference between the two, aside from one being in a different time/space than humans. From our limited perspective as humans, we usually perceive a strong difference, but for all we know, all these otherworlds do literally exist in parallel universes/dimensions.

I can see that something we imagine is a real part of our ( inner ) experience, but I don't see why you would equate an imaginary experience to an otherworld or something "out there". I don't see either how an imaginary experience is somehow outside normal human time/space, given that these imaginings occur in our minds, in the present.

So for example I could imagine dropping a brick on my foot in great detail, I could visualise it falling and I could imagine the sudden pain in my toes, and so on, But surely that is quite different from actually dropping a brick on my foot. One is an imaginary experience, the other is a real experience. I'm still struggling to understand your reason for wanting to blur the distinction.

 

[Demonslayer]

One is an imaginary experience, the other is a real experience. I'm still struggling to understand your reason for wanting to blur the distinction.

In order to maintain the belief in the imaginary, one must blur the distinction between imagination and reality.

 

[leibowde84]

So what is existed other than God ?
How things started ? don't you think that a thing has started everything ?
What is your view as an atheist ? what's the other option than God.
Please straight and brief answer.

This is an argument from ignorance ... a well-known logical fallacy. The absence of an alternative explanation does not support the claim that God did it.

 

[prometheus11]

In order to maintain the belief in the imaginary, one must blur the distinction between imagination and reality.

I understand your reasoning, but I'm not so sure that such is always the case. I know people who are much better at defining and describing a distinct line between imagination and reality yet believe in a literal God which listens to every word of their prayers. These people simply compartmentalize their thinking and do not apply the standards they use to determine reality on that God idea which they have placed "beyond" their tools of criticism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In order to maintain the belief in the imaginary, one must blur the distinction between imagination and reality.

Yes, that could certainly be an explanation.

 

[Thief]

This is an argument from ignorance ... a well-known logical fallacy. The absence of an alternative explanation does not support the claim that God did it.

doesn't mean I can't choose....
and in so doing....I am sure.

you may label yourself ignorant if you care to.

I know.....and I am sure of it

 

[leibowde84]

doesn't mean I can't choose....
and in so doing....I am sure.

you may label yourself ignorant if you care to.

I know.....and I am sure of it

If there is a choice, then both options are plausible. And, as such, your "surety" doesn't help your case of not being ignorant.

 

[Gambit]

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

Please define "belief" and "fact" (as you understand the terms) and the distinction between the two.

 

[leibowde84]

Please define "belief" and "fact" (as you understand the terms) and the distinction between the two.

Fact = indisputably the case.
Belief = accepting something as being the case without sufficient evidence/support to qualify as fact (disputable).

 

[Gambit]

Can you demonstrate this to be the case?

You do not know at this present moment as to whether or not you are aware that you aware?

So God cannot reason or remember things? Interesting.

Do you believe divine reason entails a temporal process (somewhat like human reason does)?

 

[Shad]

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.)

Still nonsense as Watt does nothing to link reason with God other than wild arguments from incredibility. All he does is claim without God there is no reason without justification. There is no logic in it since his premises are not sound. He has not demonstrated God, he has not demonstrated God is required for reason. I reject his premises and argument as being unsound. Once an argument is unsound there is no full logic in it, only part of a method of argument formation.

 

[prometheus11]

Watts works hard to express incredulity, then he reasons that this degree of incredulity can be easily reduced to a credulous state if all the incredulity is shifted to a god type character.