God is simple, not complex

[prometheus11]

Are you seriously attempting to compare a concept of Nessy with a concept of God (which is actually inconceivable)?

Nope.

I'm saying that any "known about concept" is accompanied by a perception.

Is there any concept that you know about which you do not have a perception of?

 

[Gambit]

Nope.

I'm saying that any "known about concept" is accompanied by a perception.

Is there any concept that you know about which you do not have a perception of?

It's conception, not perception (not unless you are actually claiming to have perceived some mythological creature). The conception of God cannot be compared to the conception of any creature (real or fictional) because the creator and the creature are on two entirely different conceptual levels. That's why atheists like yourself and others who mockingly try to compare some polytheistic deity (e.g. Zeus) or some other mythological character (e.g. a leprechaun) with God are making a (glaring) category error.

 

[prometheus11]

It's conception, not perception (not unless you are actually claiming to have perceived some mythological creature). The conception of God cannot be compared to the conception of any creature (real or fictional) because the creator and the creature are on two entirely different conceptual levels. That's why atheists like yourself and others who mockingly try to compare some polytheistic deity (e.g. Zeus) or some other mythological character (e.g. a leprechaun) with God are making a (glaring) category error.

Not accepted. (That's a polite, debate-friendly way of saying "bull hockey")

And I don't mock "characters" that can't be proved to exist. There is equal verifiable evidence for biblegod and Zeus: none.

As to perception versus conceptualization, you perceive the concept of leprechauns, the tooth fairy, and God.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Can you be more specific? At what level of decreasing complexity does a supernatural being become classified as simple???

Simpler than a human? Simpler than a tree? Simpler than a rock? Simpler than a molecule? Simpler than an atom?

And I just finished reading another theist's post on another thread who states god made everything out of existing matter. You guys need to get your story straight. Out of nothing or out of something.

 

[Unification]

The same can be said of any concept. Unicorns, leprechauns, and Bigfoot.

And are the abstract conceptions of unicorns, leprechauns, and Bigfoot immature?

 

[Unification]

Can you be more specific? At what level of decreasing complexity does a supernatural being become classified as simple???

Simpler than a human? Simpler than a tree? Simpler than a rock? Simpler than a molecule? Simpler than an atom?

And I just finished reading another theist's post on another thread who states god made everything out of existing matter. You guys need to get your story straight. Out of nothing or out of something.

Milton, your abstract conception of "God" as a supernatural being is immature according to an "atheist."

 

[prometheus11]

And are the abstract conceptions of unicorns, leprechauns, and Bigfoot immature?

In my opinion? No.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Deism can look closer to atheism than theism.

That's pretty much what I said, and yes from our standpoint, they're the same--the only difference is hope, and which one is ultimately right, which is intentionally hidden from us, if there is a God.

God-fearing is not about fear it is about awe of God. The term is based on Old English. People read it modern English as what we now consider fear by mistake.

If fear is in the intended meaning, then why did God let "fear" be used? That's the problem with all translations and all denominations, why does God allow any but the correct ones. Of course, since God is all about maintaining our free will, none of them is the divinely sanctioned one.

 

[Milton Platt]

Milton, your abstract conception of "God" as a supernatural being is immature according to an "atheist."

I simply asked you to define what you mean by the word simple. Can you do it? My concept of any particular god is irrelevant. It is your concept of a god that is being questioned, not mine. But you are welcome to give me a non abstract conception of a god and we will go with that. I am easy to get along with that way.

 

[Gambit]

Can you be more specific?.

I have already furnished you with a link to the Wikipedia article on "divine simplicity" in the original post of this thread. I suggest you start there (if you are seriously interested in learning).

 

[Gambit]

Hmm, or you could take the time to explain that it is a categorical error because the definition of god you are working with is not material whereas these things are, hence the assertion that it is a categorical error.

I already have. See post #462.

I wrote a response to reflex a couple pages back. I find it very interesting that neither of you are willing to expand much on this god concept that you have in theory researched so well. I am beginning to wonder whether you have just read a book recently, and upon the realization that the simple god concept avoids most common objections--because it is built off an uncommon framework-- to take your partly understood knowledge to the net and parade it around for some sardonic pleasure. Why don't you explain the necessary framework to avoid more confusion and poo flinging instead of adding to the heap?

The doctrine of divine simplicity is one of the cornerstones of classical theology. Obviously, you didn't realize that. And it was for this reason that I started this thread - to correct this common misconception that atheists like yourself have, namely, that theologians are proposing a complex entity as the ultimate cause.

 

[Parsimony]

And I just finished reading another theist's post on another thread who states god made everything out of existing matter. You guys need to get your story straight. Out of nothing or out of something.

Theists do not represent a hive mind any more than atheists do. You're going to find a variety of opinions on both sides.

 

[Curious George]

I already have. See post #462.



The doctrine of divine simplicity is one of the cornerstones of classical theology. Obviously, you didn't realize that. And it was for this reason that I started this thread - to correct this common misconception that atheists like yourself have, namely, that theologians are proposing a complex entity as the ultimate cause.

The doctrine of divine simplicity is not successful at defending any major religious beliefs. In order to preserve a simple god you end up positing what amounts to not a god. You must take concepts such as "all powerful" and say that such is not equal to powerful. You must remove god from temporal and spatial arenas and relegate it to spiritual only. You literally destroy every god concoction in the process, DDS results in garbage. Moreover you must apply a framework under which most people do not operate. You can connect the theory to tropes, but if we are going to rid ourselves of universals, why would we need god in the first place? The god that is described as divinely simple is no god that is preached about today. Any god that interacts with us, is acting in time. To act in time one must be subject to time. One cannot be subject to time and unchanging. God cannot be simple and subject to change.

The theory is toast. Unless you are positing some ethereal form that does not interact with us, and essentially just adding another entity for no other purpose than to make a theory more complex than is necessary so as to keep "god" around.

 

[Milton Platt]

Theists do not represent a hive mind any more than atheists do. You're going to find a variety of opinions on both sides.

I agree. Except for agreeing that they do not hold a belief in the existence of any gods, atheists can and do have varied opinions about all manner of things. That is beside the point here. We are discussing views on one particular point. Atheists do agree on their view of the existence of gods...that is what makes them atheist. Theists take the position that everything was created by a god. Both of the theists I was referring to made statements that were contradictory as if they were both facts, not guesses.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The conception of God cannot be compared to the conception of any creature (real or fictional) because the creator and the creature are on two entirely different conceptual levels.

So God is simple but we cannot conceive of God?

 

[Shad]

If fear is in the intended meaning, then why did God let "fear" be used? [/quote]

God seems unconcerned that people distort supposed text written or inspired by God. Which is pretty common if one looks at history.

That's the problem with all translations and all denominations, why does God allow any but the correct ones.

A christian would say free will. I would put forward the claims of these texts are false in many of their God claims.

Of course, since God is all about maintaining our free will, none of them is the divinely sanctioned one.

Or God could be a neutral figure which does not interfere when some primitive form of life, in comparison, decides to scribe some paper, bark, stone, etc. However that would be a question for the theist to resolve. I am not a theist so the holes you are poking at I agree with. However as pointed out above God could be neutral or is just an idea people latch on to. In this case for authority.

 

[Reflex]

It is curious that there is such an insistence that the doctrine divine simplicity be understood in a univocal or concrete way when its inventors were clear that the language is allegorical. So misunderstood, "God is love" is heard as "God has love," like Santa has love for children. So misunderstood, "God is rational" is heard as "God has an intelligence that can be discerned in the way intelligence is discerned in creatures. So misunderstood, "God is all-powerful" is heard as "God has power" and can therefore be held responsible for human suffering. So misunderstood, the term "God" is understood as something that designates something apart from one's subjective life-experience.

The author of The Cloud of Unknowing, written anonymously in the latter half of the 14th century wrote, "By love he may be gotten and holden; by thought, never." This means that the reality of what human beings call "God" is beyond all debate

 

[Reflex]

Not accepted. I and many nonbelievers have been through extensive theology. Don't confuse disbelief with theological ignorance.

While my experiences are strictly my own and anecdotal evidence is often rejected for valid reasons, I claim that a greater majority of unbelievers are more educated on theological matters than believers. If you put ten believers against ten former believers, I would bet a large sum that the nonbelievers would have a better understanding of the bible than the believers. (Provided the selection was by random method).

The fact that you try to reduce "God" to a debatable concept is all the proof one needs to show that you have no understanding, notwithstanding an extensive knowledge of theology( assuming we were to believe you do).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The fact that you try to reduce "God" to a debatable concept is all the proof one needs to show that you have no understanding, notwithstanding an extensive knowledge of theology( assuming we were to believe you do).

"God" is a concept. Surely if "God" is simple it should be an easily debatable?

 

[Reflex]

"God" is a concept. Surely if "God" is simple it should be an easily debatable?

Surely you should learn the difference between "univocal" and "allegorical." (see post #477)