God is simple, not complex

[Reflex]

Yet I have not muddied the water and am happy to use your definitions as long as they connected with some system of logic. On a sidenote, arguing for a concept under one ontology framework, not explicitly setting forth this framework, and then accusing others of ignorance and the like is at least suspect of intellectual dishonesty.

This is the difficulty to which I referred when trying to use apophatic theology and kataphatic theology in such a way that they compliment each other. The one is amorphous and the other is misleading, but both are logical when viewed from within. That being said, by ignoring long-standing religious understandings, atheists change, or try to change, the framework of the discussion in order to be argumentative or do so in order to insure that the discussion remains on an immature level. All the popular "new atheist" writers, without exception, do this, and when others, like Hart or Feser point this out, they are promptly ignored, accused of being 'intellectually dishonest,' or accused of changing the framework of the discussion--though, sometimes, they give pause to some atheists to consider theists have a point (as in the review I linked to).

But how audacious, how politically incorrect, how offensive it must be to some for a theist to argue "that to seek the good is already to believe in God, whether one wishes to do so or not."

 

[Willamena]

To define.

I don't get it.

 

[prometheus11]

You're pretty cavalier with your attribution of what you claim to be God's attitude towards It's divinely revealed word. Whatever it takes to keep the faithful in line I guess.

Holy crap! This thread is getting deep.

I'm not sure about what you intend, here. Elaborate.

 

[prometheus11]

Nw, I don't much mind being mocked, even if you were so inclined. As long as we can come to some sort of understanding I am happy. But I think we need to grapple with a default, a place where we agree, first.

On what precept do you think we ought agree?

 

[Curious George]

This is the difficulty to which I referred when trying to use apophatic theology and kataphatic theology in such a way that they compliment each other. The one is amorphous and the other is misleading, but both are logical when viewed from within. That being said, by ignoring long-standing religious understandings, atheists change, or try to change, the framework of the discussion in order to be argumentative or do so in order to insure that the discussion remains on an immature level. All the popular "new atheist" writers, without exception, do this, and when others, like Hart or Feser point this out, they are promptly ignored, accused of being 'intellectually dishonest,' or accused of changing the framework of the discussion--though, sometimes, they give pause to some atheists to consider theists have a point (as in the review I linked to).

But how audacious, how politically incorrect, how offensive it must be to some for a theist to argue "that to seek the good is already to believe in God, whether one wishes to do so or not."

Unless they join rf, those atheists can bugger right off. I already have a bone to pick with them for defining rocks as atheists, but that is another thread for another day (and a reoccurring thread, at that). I will watch for this dismissal, but I would imagine that the problem is they are invested in a specific ontological framework. It should not then be surprising that they try to push the discussion into that framework as did say platinga. In order for them not to do so would require discussion about the framework. Otherwise you are just talking past each other. The problem here is that you seem to be aware of the conflict, but they are not. So it is suspect that you would ignore the conflict and just start bashing them.

 

[Curious George]

I don't get it.

You don't get what specifically?

 

[Curious George]

On what precept do you think we ought agree?

For this discussion? Whether or not universals exist might be a place to start.

 

[Reflex]

Unless they join rf, those atheists can bugger right off. I already have a bone to pick with them for defining rocks as atheists, but that is another thread for another day (and a reoccurring thread, at that).

LOL! No argument from me.

I will watch for this dismissal, but I would imagine that the problem is they are invested in a specific ontological framework. It should not then be surprising that they try to push the discussion into that framework as did say platinga. In order for them not to do so would require discussion about the framework. Otherwise you are just talking past each other. The problem here is that you seem to be aware of the conflict, but they are not. So it is suspect that you would ignore the conflict and just start bashing them.

Well, I do find myself just bashing or ignoring them far more often than I should. I blame it on PTSD. Hyper-vigilance makes me extremely sensitive to red herrings.

 

[Curious George]

LOL! No argument from me.

Well, I do find myself just bashing them far more often than I should. I blame it on PTSD. Hyper-vigilance makes me extremely sensitive to red herrings.

At least you have a sense of humor.

 

[raw_thought]

See post 503
God is not good, bad...those are predicates.
Only finite beings can understand predicates.
It is up to us to teach God ethics.
There is power in being finite!!! That being infinite lacks!
For example, remember the old game called "chicken"? Two cars face each other. They race towards each other.The first person to swerve is a chixken and loses the game. Suppose, an omniscient being (that is also mortal) faces a finite mortal. Who will win? The finite mortal every time!!! Why? Because the finite mortal knows that the omniscient mortal knows everything . So the finite mortal chooses to never swerve. The omniscient mortal kmows that the finite mortal will never swerve. So the omniscient mortal will always swerve because being mortal, dying is the worst possible outcome .

 

[outhouse]

Well, I do find myself just bashing or ignoring them far more often than I should. I blame it on PTSD. Hyper-vigilance makes me extremely sensitive to red herrings.

It takes biblical knowledge to debate god, and I can see why many are forced to ignore content they know nothing about.

 

[prometheus11]

See post 503
God is not good, bad...those are predicates.
Only finite beings can understand predicates.
It is up to us to teach God ethics.
There is power in being finite!!! That being infinite lacks!
For example, remember the old game called "chicken"? Two cars face each other. They race towards each other.The first person to swerve is a chixken and loses the game. Suppose, an omniscient being (that is also mortal) faces a finite mortal. Who will win? The finite mortal every time!!! Why? Because the finite mortal knows that the omniscient mortal knows everything . So the finite mortal chooses to never swerve. The omniscient mortal kmows that the finite mortal will never swerve. So the omniscient mortal will always swerve because being mortal, dying is the worst possible outcome .

Yes, please. A quarter ounce of what he's smoking, if you don't mind.

 

[outhouse]

Hart or Feser

Are not scholars and have no real knowledge of god to even begin to address the concept academically.

 

[outhouse]

Atheists here like to muddy the waters by drawing the discussion away from what theists are saying by inferring things that are not, in fact, being said at all. I don't know whether they do this simply because they like being argumentative, are incapable of understanding what's being said, or because they believe that in order to discuss God and religion at all, it must be on their terms and according to their definitions.

Anyone, can debate the debate.

Everything you stated about atheism applies to theist equally.

Atheist do not use their own definition, if they did the debate would be over, it does not exist outside mythology by all credible standards.

Atheist use theist definitions and their is nothing to refute, because NOTHING was brought to the table to address in the first place.

 

[outhouse]

Briefly, scientism is the view that science alone gives us knowledge of reality.

The problem here is science is not your enemy, nor the scientist who place knowledge before mythology.

Your biggest enemy is yourselves.

Your next biggest enemy is SCHOLARS, because they show how the concept of a deity constantly evolved using anthropology.

It shows with certainty all gods are man made creations, and we have a track record of evolution ONLY at mans hands.


No philosopher can debate religion properly, because they do not have bullets, and can only talk about guns.

Scholars have heavy artillery, and its loaded.


I believe your weakness is simply your fighting scientist who object fanaticism, and your debating the debate from not having their knowledge, or biblical knowledge.


When I was in your shoes, I dropped philosophy and studied religion to get to the bottom, not debate about a journey I never took

 

[Curious George]

LOL! No argument from me.

Well, I do find myself just bashing them far more often than I should. I blame it on PTSD. Hyper-vigilance makes me extremely sensitive to red herrings.

But returning toward the op, how do you reconcile god acting in our space and time, yet still maintaining a non-composite nature. Specifically, if god interacts with matter, god must belong to a same set as other entities that interact in our space time if nothing else but this facet. If god had a property of which he is not the single member of that set I.e. is shared with others, then he cannot be equal to that property as he is with omnipotentence etc. This means the property cannot be equal to the other properties as with the omni traits. Thus, god must have a property with which it is not equal and with which the other properties are not equal. Ergo, god cannot be simple without tropes. If we add tropes, god can exist as simple but divine simplicity is no longer the most ontologically "parsimonious" explanation.

 

[Curious George]

No philosopher can debate religion properly, because they do not have bullets, and can only talk about guns.

What do you mean by this metaphor?

 

[outhouse]

What do you mean by this metaphor?

It means they can argue [the gun] from ignorance [no bullets = no biblical knowledge] because they do no have biblical education to fully understand religions evolution or how gods definition evolved, but most of all, why it was redefined.

Basically they are not scholars, and are out of their league, its why my philosophy professor has/had me lecture biblical education in his class in a historical context.

 

[outhouse]

But returning toward the op, how do you reconcile god acting in our space and time, yet still maintaining a non-composite nature. Specifically, if god interacts with matter, god must belong to a same set as other entities that interact in our space time if nothing else but this facet. If god had a property of which he is not the single member of that set I.e. is shared with others, then he cannot be equal to that property as he is with omnipotentence etc. This means the property cannot be equal to the other properties as with the omni traits. Thus, god must have a property with which it is not equal and with which the other properties are not equal. Ergo, god cannot be simple without tropes. If we add tropes, god can exist as simple but divine simplicity is no longer the most ontologically "parsimonious" explanation.

You will likely not get any specifics. If he gives out specifics, he has to be able to defend them, and he knows he cannot.

 

[Curious George]

It means they can argue [the gun] from ignorance [no bullets = no biblical knowledge] because they do no have biblical education to fully understand religions evolution or how gods definition evolved, but most of all, why it was redefined.

Basically they are not scholars, and are out of their league, its why my philosophy professor has/had me lecture biblical education in his class in a historical context.

But what is to stop someone from arguing about the necessity of a god- a philosophical question, without discussing the dogma of a god- a religious question?