God is simple, not complex

[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 the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence?

Yes, God can be view as a parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence.

Why human/universe exists?
Believer a: Because God A did it.
Believer b: Because God B did it.
Believer c: Because God C did it.
...etc.

According to the above example, the explanation is indeed parsimonious, but it doesn't show any evidence to support the validity of those explanation. Therefor it can be view as unsubstantiated claims until any evidence is show up.
In this case, being parsimonious doesn't means the explanation is credible/trustable/true.

With the above example, do you think because the explanation is parsimonious, then its parsimonious makes it credible/trustable/true?
Why i ask that?
That is just some feeling your op have give me, i could be wrong, so i ask for clarify.

I can't understand why you have to mention "God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence" in the op, what is your reason to do so? What message you wish to convey with it?

If your intention is just to compare parsimonious of that explanation with God is simple, in the sense of simple can be view as parsimonious, then i probably can agree with it. Still i can't see any meaningful meaning for doing so.

Part of your op:

God is simple, not complex. That's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence

The statements itself seems like it's nonsensical.

God is simple, that's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence?

Why does God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence, is because of God is simple? What is the connection?

Your reason for thinking God is simple is because God is without parts.

That makes the statements similar as saying:
God is without parts, that's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence.

In a summary, i don't get why you would link God is simple and God is without parts as the reason that's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence.
Why is that? What is the relevance between them?

If you wants to convey some message imply that because God is a parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence, therefor the explanation is credible/trustable/true, then i disagree with that.

 

[Reflex]

You know, pudding, the incessant demand for "evidence" is really inane, especially considering the subject matter.

 

[prometheus11]

You know, pudding, the incessant demand for "evidence" is really inane, especially considering the subject matter.

Why so cryptic? Scared?

 

[Gambit]

Science is one thing, metaphysical naturalism another.

We're talking about your metaphysical naturalism and your proposal to dispense with causality. By dispensing with causality, you're dispensing with any causal explanation.

 

[outhouse]

Why so cryptic? Scared?

I think so.

All he does is stay where its nice and safe, and argue about the debate, but never engages with any knowledge, lots of polemic though.

 

[outhouse]

You know, pudding, the incessant demand for "evidence" is really inane, especially considering the subject matter.

What subject matter is that?

Are you going to actually join and say something?

 

[Gambit]

Your meaning of God is simple, is that:
Let's give the God's being itself a symbol of A.
"A" stand for God's being itself.
Attributes of God like his characteristics eg. B - omnipresence, C - goodness, D - truth, E - eternity, etc. are identical to God's being A.

That means God's being A is not make up by his attributes of characteristics B,C,D,E,etc. but they're equal, they're all the same, they're inseparable, A=B=C=D=E=etc.

Is that why you think God is simple but not complex?

Yes.

 

[Pudding]

You know, pudding, the incessant demand for "evidence" is really inane, especially considering the subject matter.

Please elaborate your opinion regards to my respective post, instead of giving vague response.

 

[Reflex]

Scared? No. Just befuddled by the inability of atheists to think things through for themselves.

Give it a little thought, prometheus. God is not a being, but being itself. God is not, therefore, a being alongside other beings, like a table or tooth fairy.

If you cannot understand this, I will defer to book review I posted a link to a while back: The one theology book all atheists really should read. Here is an excerpt:

In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up this second version better than I can:

… according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.​

"Evidence," because it defines and separates, can only point to something that is contingent--something which God definitely is not. Looking for evidence is like the proverbial drunk assuming that his lost car keys must be under the street lamp somewhere because that is where the light is.

 

[outhouse]

God is not a being

That is correct.

but being itself

That's is assumption based on personal faith.

Damon Linker sums up

His imagination.

something which God definitely is not.

Assumptive and quite a baseless claim. Very imaginative

Every definition of god to date has been subject to chance. Including your personal version unlike anyone else's personal definition.

 

[Pudding]

Yes.

Thanks for the confirm.

 

[outhouse]

Damon Linker

Weak.

He has no real biblical education, and is more of a right wing political theistic writer, who knows nothing about any god.

Another philosophy professor in over his head.

 

[Reflex]

Please elaborate your opinion regards to my respective post, instead of giving vague response.

Nothing personal, Pudding. There's no excuse, but I really, really am baffled by the inability of so many in this forum to grasp something that is so basic.

 

[outhouse]

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

Its rather an ignorant piece.

His fatal flaw is that he assumes atheist view god as a static definition in his "superhero" "cosmic craftsman" polemic. Its not always the case.

Typically biblically uneducated theist like hart and linker, often know nothing of the real biblical history because their theistic bias has blinded them to real history.

Their ignorance leaves their argument very vulnerable.

They want to personally redefine the concept by perverting the actual biblical text, which places the concept in a safety layer where it cannot be found or even debated outside of personal imagination.

Epic fail on their part.

 

[Pudding]

Nothing personal, Pudding. There's no excuse, but I really, really am baffled by the inability of so many in this forum to grasp something that is so basic.

You have no intention to elaborate your opinion regards to my respective post?
No problem, then i have no idea what you wish to discuss with me.
Please reply to me with something relevant, if you wish to continue the conversation.

 

[outhouse]

You have no intention to elaborate your opinion regards to my respective post?

He cannot.

It would take credible biblical knowledge, I don't think he has any at all.

He is in to philosophy

Please reply me with something relevant, if you wish to continue the conversation.

Good luck with that.

Philosophy only gives you the tools to debate the debate, not actually participate.

 

[Gambit]

If your intention is just to compare parsimonious of that explanation with God is simple, in the sense of simple can be view as parsimonious, then i probably can agree with it.

Dawkins' tacit argument (which many atheists are apparently parroting, because I hear it all the time) is basically this: Theologians do not understand the principle of parsimony because they are attempting to put forth a complex entity (God) as the ultimate explanation. (Atheists apparently do not realize that the principle of parsimony is first and foremost a philosophical and theological principle.)

 

[Reflex]

You have no intention to elaborate your opinion regards to my respective post?
No problem, then i have no idea what you wish to discuss with me.
Please reply to me with something relevant, if you wish to continue the conversation.

My response to prometheus is an elaboration on why the demand for evidence is not logical.

 

[Pudding]

He cannot.

It would take credible biblical knowledge, I don't think he has any at all.

He is in to philosophy



Good luck with that.

Philosophy only gives you the tools to debate the debate, not actually participate.

We'll see, or you have already seen it, then i'll see.

 

[Pudding]

My response to prometheus is an elaboration on why the demand for evidence is not logical.

Please elaborate your opinion according to my respective post in a relation to the op's post, point by point or directly regards to my post, for better understanding.
Your current method for conversation is unclear, I have no idea what things you wish to discuss with me.
Please use the quote function for better clarity.