God is simple, not complex

[Rick O'Shez]

God as being itself can only be predicated analogically.

So God can only be conceived by analogy?

 

[Koldo]

God is not dependent on "our state of affairs composed of multiple things" for God's existence.

Assuming that by God you mean the wholeness: Indeed, but to exist 'as is' it does. That's what I am saying.
For instance, a colorless whole is distinct from a colorful whole.

 

[viole]

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

If it is unconceivable, how do you know it is simple? Or whatever else?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

So God can only be conceived by analogy?

There are generally two ways of speaking about the divine or ultimate reality, we can speak about it either univocally (unambiguously) or equivocally (ambiguously). These two ways are generally regarded as the cataphatic (positive) and the apophatic (negative) ways respectively. Thomas proposes a third way, we can speak about the divine reality analogically.

Second, at least for Thomists, when attributing intellect, knowledge, etc. both to God and to us, we have to understand the relevant terms analogously rather than univocally. It’s not that God has knowledge in just the sense we do, only more of it. It’s rather that there is in God something analogous to what we call knowledge in us, even if (since He is absolutely simple, eternal, etc.) it cannot be the same thing we have. (source: "The Divine Intellect," by Edward Feser)

 

[Gambit]

If it is unconceivable, how do you know it is simple? Or whatever else?

We cannot conceive of infinity either, but that does not prevent us from speaking about it symbolically and employing it in mathematics.

 

[Shad]

If fear is not the intended meaning, then why did God let that word be used? What is Hell for if not as a source of fear?

Ask Christian that point. I am not a Christian. My answer would be religion are products of humans thus humans wrote and translated scripture.

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.

I am not a theist. I am just providing some answers I was provided when I was a theist. As per above I think religion is a human invention

 

[outhouse]

There are generally two ways of speaking about the divine or ultimate reality

No sir.

Limiting the terms, is limiting the possibilities, it is assuming and imaginative at best.

There are more ways of speaking about the divine, then one can keep track of

Let alone the error of calling divine an "ultimate reality" that is an assumption.

These two ways are generally regarded as the cataphatic (positive) and the apophatic (negative) ways respectively

In a narrow sense at best . Your connotation of positive or negative would be incorrect depending on context.

Thomas proposes a third way, we can speak about the divine reality analogically.

Which almost works out to allegorically, which can work out to mythologically

 

[outhouse]

Why?

Because there is no static concept of god. God is an evolution of multiple ideologies and compiled traditions that ended up creating the one god concept.

Without historical context, your making another god the same way we see all gods made.

Biblical knowledge is required so I can determine which god your talking about.

 

[outhouse]

God as being itself can only be predicated analogically.

This may not mean what you think it does.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Thomas proposes a third way, we can speak about the divine reality analogically.

So can you give some practical analogies for God?

 

[outhouse]

Why?

It takes knowledge to argue successfully.

 

[Reflex]

So can you give some practical analogies for God?

Everything used to describe God is analogous.

 

[outhouse]

Everything used to describe God is analogous.

Which means your definition of god in this context is vague and unsupported.

It means anything can be used to describe god, and this is not a supportable position or opinion

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Everything used to describe God is analogous.

Analogies illustrate similarities, so this is meaningless.

 

[Reflex]

Analogies illustrate similarities.

Precisely.

so this is meaningless

Many theists would agree. (see post #604)

 

[outhouse]

Many theists would agree.

And atheist

 

[Gambit]

Because there is no static concept of god.

The subject matter here is the monotheistic "God," not a pantheistic "god."

Biblical knowledge is required so I can determine which god your talking about.

We are talking about the God of classical theism.

 

[Gambit]

So can you give some practical analogies for God?

I gave you an example in my previous post addressed to you. Did you not bother to read it?

 

[Gambit]

It takes knowledge to argue successfully.

Agreed. I am fairly conversant in classical theology; it doesn't appear that you are.

 

[Gambit]

Which means your definition of god in this context is vague and unsupported.

It means that we can speak about being only analogically

"Being is not a genus, since it is not predicated univocally but only analogically." - St. Thomas Aquinas