Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
What's your point? You mean "God" is an allegory? And if so, what for?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God is simple, not complex
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
What's your point? You mean "God" is an allegory? And if so, what for?
Curious George
Veteran Member
this 14th century quote means one must have faith because thoughts on the subject will not make sense.why would anyone accept a explanation they did not understand when the alternative explanation is understandable?
Reflex
Active Member
That sounds like a child's retort: "So?"
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Eh? I was just asking for clarification because you were being cryptic.
Reflex
Active Member
Are you saying "faith" is belief in a body of unsubstantiated ideas? If so, that's just another atheist superstition.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Sounded to me as though he was asking a question.
Curious George
Veteran Member
No I am saying if we cannot understand x by thought, and we can understand y by thought, and both x and y offer an answer to the same question, there is little reason to choose x over y.
Reflex
Active Member
I specifically stated the the language pertaining to the doctrine of divine simplicity is allegorical, not "God."
Curious George
Veteran Member
I am pretty sure it is not. Defenders of divine simplicity say that god is all powerful and distinguish this from god is powerful by a very specific type of argument. They are not being allegorical. They are indeed stating that there is a god and it is all-powerful. This to my knowledge is not an allegorical claim.
Reflex
Active Member
If I understand what you mean correctly, choosing x over y would be neglecting the human condition. It's that kind of thing that leas to extreme asceticism.
Reflex
Active Member
Your understanding is a category error: "a" God implies a being alongside other beings.
I defer to the excerpt to the article I linked to:
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.
… 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.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
the shear abundance of bodies now in play.....
each one forms a unique spirit.
no point is all of this life and learning...only to lose any and all in the dust.
Curious George
Veteran Member
A god, means not that god exists alongside other beings. A god means that god is singular and specific. God cannot exist alongside other beings because doing so would not allow for simplicity. God cannot be material for being such would prevent it from being equal to any perfection. That is you and I are both good, but this goodness exists in part with our matter. So while we are good we are not equal to goodness because it is not all we are. God has no material so god is equal to perfect goodness or whatever omni trait you want to toss in the discussion (This all according to constituent ontology). But that doesn't prevent god from being termed a god, in fact it encourages it, though admittedly the god might be a better device.
outhouse
Atheistically
Have you ever looked up the definition of the word "faith"
So yes it factually is belief in the body of unsubstantiated ideas
faith
(feɪθ)
n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
outhouse
Atheistically
Has no credibility, or real biblical historical knowledge. He is not a scholar
outhouse
Atheistically
How did you determine this?
outhouse
Atheistically
Are you not doing the same thing ?
Your placing him in gaps of knowledge where you can hide the concept from any critical examination, basically your redefining the concept outside reality.
With northing to substantiate your personal position
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
And what does that mean, practically speaking?
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Nothing in my post had anything to do with debating God. Do you often misread entire paragraphs?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
If we can have no concept of god and cannot debate his/her/ it's attributes, then it is impossible for anyone to claim there is a god at all.