God is simple, not complex

[Pudding]

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

Belief
1 - An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
1.1 - Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
1.2 - A religious conviction.

Fact
1 - A thing that is known or proved to be true.

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.

In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. (source: Wikipedia: Divine simplicity)

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 demonstrate its validity.
Thanks for sharing your speculation or beliefs or personal experience which i've no idea whether it's true or not. edit

This is my interpretation about your opinion according to the op.
You think God is simple, not complex, because God is without parts.
God is without parts, because the doctrine of divine simplicity says so.

You're just making a claim that God is simple, not complex, because God is without parts, base on another claim - God is without parts, because the doctrine of divine simplicity says so.

I haven't seen you present any evidence to prove the validity of the claim "God is without parts, because the doctrine of divine simplicity says so".
Without giving any evidence to prove the claim's validity, then i've no idea what we can debate about a bold empty claim - "God is without parts, because the doctrine of divine simplicity says so".
Why do you believe the claim is true?

 

[Pudding]

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.

In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. (source: Wikipedia: Divine simplicity)

God is simple, because God is without parts.
God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence, because God is simple.

Where is the evidence which prove God is without parts?
God's existence haven't be proven objectively to every people at the same time but only subjectively through individual person.

Since individual person's personal experience about God's existence cannot be demonstrated, then how can you convince those people who think God is complex that their opinion God is complex is wrong?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Where is the evidence which prove God is without parts?

Where is the evidence to prove that Santa isn't fat?

 

[Pudding]

Where is the evidence to prove that Santa isn't fat?

If you have no intent to convince me the belief that Santa isn't fat is true, i think very likely i will not ask for evidence for that belief or try to convince you that you're wrong.

 

[Pudding]

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

life after death and you say ...nay?

support that.

Never do i claim certainty about life after death nor no afterlife.
I don't know the true answer whether there is an afterlife or not.

Where is your support about life after death?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you have no intent to convince me the belief that Santa isn't fat is true, i think very likely i will not ask for evidence for that belief or try to convince you that you're wrong.

It's an impossible thing to prove because Santa is a fictional character. The same applies to "God".

 

[Pudding]

It's an impossible thing to prove because Santa is a fictional character. The same applies to "God".

Which means that it's probably meaningless to make claim about something which cannot be proven while at the same time wish to convince others that the claim is true.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It doesn't need those things, it's only required that we do.

Hearsay, invented by you, apparently without reason or evidence. Mankind--"still crazy after all these (10,000) years".

"Truth forever on the scaffold,
Wrong forever on the throne,
Yet the scaffold sways the future,
And, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God withing the shadow,
Keeping watch above his own."
--James Russell Lowell

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I see it, the term "one" here is not meant in a quantitative sense, but in a qualitative sense to mean "wholeness."

We already have a term for wholeness (i.e. "wholeness"). What baggage are you adding when you use the term "God"?

 

[Willamena]

Because definition is, by definition, to state meaning in terms of other things, the baggage will always occur.

 

[Willamena]

Hearsay, invented by you, apparently without reason or evidence. Mankind--"still crazy after all these (10,000) years".

"Truth forever on the scaffold,
Wrong forever on the throne,
Yet the scaffold sways the future,
And, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God withing the shadow,
Keeping watch above his own."
--James Russell Lowell

Technically, being invented is a radical contrast of hearsay, which is repeating something you've learned from others.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Technically, being invented is a radical contrast of heresay, which is repeating something you've learned from others.

Yeah, but it always has to start somewhere. And you're dodging the point. Whether you started it, or are just repeating it, is a technicality. It still lacks a reasonable basis.

 

[Reflex]

It's an impossible thing to prove because Santa is a fictional character. The same applies to "God".

I like to imagine that this kind of category error will go the way of the dodo.

 

[prometheus11]

I like to imagine that this kind of category error will go the way of the dodo.

What categorical error?

What methods are there to measure and prove Santa is more real than God or the ghost of Elvis?

 

[Reflex]

What categorical error?

What methods are there to measure and prove Santa is more real than God or the ghost of Elvis?

That category error. Atheists cling to their immature conceptions of God the way toddlers cling to a security blanket.

The one theology book all atheists really should read

 

[Gambit]

We already have a term for wholeness (i.e. "wholeness"). What baggage are you adding when you use the term "God"?

We must posit a necessary being in order to account for a world of contingent beings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That category error. Atheists cling to their immature conceptions of God the way toddlers cling to a security blanket.

The one theology book all atheists really should read

It's cute that you think that it's a "category error" when people don't accept your brand of special pleading.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We must posit a necessary being in order to account for a world of contingent beings.

Must we? Justify this assertion.

What do your suppositions about states of affairs that could have happened but didn't have to do with the actual state of things?

 

[Reflex]

LOL! Don't worry. I'm not going to try to take your security blanket away. All I can do is offer you something that might help you grow up. Like the link I posted.

 

[prometheus11]

That category error. Atheists cling to their immature conceptions of God the way toddlers cling to a security blanket.

The one theology book all atheists really should read

I don't know what "immature conceptions" to which you're referring.