• 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

Reflex

Reflex

Active Member
Curious George said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that, but as you can see in this thread, atheists here assume "God" designates something debatable. But if the aim is to ascertain truth, it's not. Quoting the article from The Week:

"Every pursuit of truth, every attempt to be good, every longing for beauty presupposes the existence of some idea of truth, goodness, and beauty from which these particular instances are derived. And these transcendental ideas unite in the classical concept of God, who simply is truth, goodness, and beauty. That’s why, although it isn’t necessary to believe in God in some explicit way in order to be good, it certainly is the case (in Hart’s words) "that to seek the good is already to believe in God, whether one wishes to do so or not." "
​
The above is what the doctrine if simplicity points to. Paul Tillich said, "“God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” And this: “It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being.” It's not the best choice of words. I understand what he is saying, but many atheists will think it is simply incoherent. IMO, apophatic theology and kataphatic theology should compliment each other in spite of the difficulty of such attempts.

Milton Platt said:
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.
Click to expand...
As you can see from what Tillich said, there is some truth in what you say, but from the article(s), it can be seen that if the aim of a debate is to ascertain truth, it is impossible to deny God because God is that very truth.

I guess what I'm saying is that atheists either like to be argumentative, cling to their preconceived notion of a Santa-like God like an insecure toddler clings to a security blanket, or simply cannot grasp what is being said..
 
Last edited:
R

raw_thought

Well-Known Member
God is pure existence. (classic theology)
Existence is not a predicate. (Kant)
Therefore God is not a predicate !
xxxxx
Subjects (to borrow Hawkings phrase) breath fire into predicates. Without a subject a predicate is only an abstraction. Subjects instantiate predicates!
God is simple (only predicates are complicated). God is the substance behind the fog of abstractions .Very Hindu, everything we see is only God playing hide and seek within infinite space and eternity!
Xxxx
Anyway, I do not know if that is true. But it is valid! And it explains how evil can exist with a God.
Validity and truth are two different things. The below argument is valid but untrue ,
1. All Martians eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Maryain.
3. Therefore Bob eats snakes.
Here is an invalid argument that is trie,
1. Eisenhower was president.
2. Nixon was president.
3. Therefore Carter was president.
 
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Reflex said:
I have no problem with that, but as you can see in this thread, atheists here assume "God" designates something debatable. But if the aim is to ascertain truth, it's not. Quoting the article from The Week:

"Every pursuit of truth, every attempt to be good, every longing for beauty presupposes the existence of some idea of truth, goodness, and beauty from which these particular instances are derived. And these transcendental ideas unite in the classical concept of God, who simply is truth, goodness, and beauty. That’s why, although it isn’t necessary to believe in God in some explicit way in order to be good, it certainly is the case (in Hart’s words) "that to seek the good is already to believe in God, whether one wishes to do so or not." "
​
The above is what the doctrine if simplicity points to. Paul Tillich said, "“God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” And this: “It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being.” It's not the best choice of words. I understand what he is saying, but many atheists will think it is simply incoherent. IMO, apophatic theology and kataphatic theology should compliment each other in spite of the difficulty of such attempts.

As you can see from what Tillich said, there is some truth in what you say, but from the article(s), it can be seen that if the aim of a debate is to ascertain truth, it is impossible to deny God because God is that very truth.

I guess what I'm saying is that atheists either like to be argumentative, cling to their preconceived notion of a Santa-like God like an insecure toddler clings to a security blanket, or simply cannot grasp what is being said..
Click to expand...

Atheists generally debate about the particular god the person they are debating with is trying to assert. I don't accept that god is truth.....why use the word god, then. And this is not the definition of the god of any religion I have debated about. If that is the only defining attribute of your god, you have defined him out of existence. I could call any concept "god" that I wished......so what?
 
Reflex

Reflex

Active Member
Milton Platt said:
I don't accept that god is truth.....
Click to expand...
That's not my problem, but one you have to wrestle with.

And this is not the definition of the god of any religion I have debated about.
Click to expand...
Then you need to get out more; do some investigating. Read the articles I linked to or, better yet, the book they were reviewing.

I could call any concept "god" that I wished
Click to expand...
God is no more a concept than reality is a concept. That's the point you're missing.
 
Last edited:
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Milton Platt said:
Atheists generally debate about the particular god the person they are debating with is trying to assert. I don't accept that god is truth.....why use the word god, then. And this is not the definition of the god of any religion I have debated about. If that is the only defining attribute of your god, you have defined him out of existence. I could call any concept "god" that I wished......so what?
Click to expand...
It's not a definition, just an image. An idolatrous one, if taken literally.
 
prometheus11

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
raw_thought said:
God is pure existence. (classic theology)
Existence is not a predicate. (Kant)
Therefore God is not a predicate !
xxxxx
Subjects (to borrow Hawkings phrase) breath fire into predicates. Without a subject a predicate is only an abstraction. Subjects instantiate predicates!
God is simple (only predicates are complicated). God is the substance behind the fog of abstractions .Very Hindu, everything we see is only God playing hide and seek within infinite space and eternity!
Xxxx
Anyway, I do not know if that is true. But it is valid! And it explains how evil can exist with a God.
Validity and truth are two different things. The below argument is valid but untrue ,
1. All Martians eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Maryain.
3. Therefore Bob eats snakes.
Here is an invalid argument that is trie,
1. Eisenhower was president.
2. Nixon was president.
3. Therefore Carter was president.
Click to expand...

To clarify.

Your second argument isn't true, it's conclusion happens to coincidentally be fact.
 
R

raw_thought

Well-Known Member
If God is truth and rruth is defined by the correspondence theoey of truth ,then God is the correspondence theoey of truth.
 
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Reflex said:
Exactly. The word "God," like the word "reality," designates but does not define or describe.
Click to expand...
The word reality is a word which is used to refer to the physical world, not an ethereal supernatural one. You are committing a category error. We can experience the physical world, and scientifically confirm it's properties. The word god is used repeatedly to denote a supernatural being in most religions. What religion and what god are you referring to, then? Again, if you cannot define it, there is no way to know that it exists.
 
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Willamena said:
Or... I am angry.

Anger in no way defines me.
Click to expand...
It describes you......that tells me something about you....part of the definition of what makes you....you. That is how I am using the word define. What are the properties of god? Such as some of the properties of the Christian god are anger, jealousy, etc.
 
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Willamena said:
Describes, yes. But doesn't define.
Click to expand...

Samey same for purposes of the discussion. A definition is a description. But to your point....anger would currently be a description of your emotional state. And it partially defines what you are at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top