God is simple, not complex

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(It is grammatically incorrect to use "god" to reference the monotheistic deity. And if you continue to do that, then you will fail to communicate effectively.)

Nonsense. The term "God" is just the name of a particular god (or family of gods, rather).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's where you're wrong. Although this has already been explained to you, "God" (with an upper case "G") is not some being of a particular class.

Of course it is. It's a member of the class of gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Simple" means "without parts," not "uncomplicated";

The claim that God is simple is normally used as a response to the special pleading in the argument from design:

A: "Human beings are too complicated to have arisen naturally; they must have been created by God."
B: "But any god capable of designing and creating human beings must be orders of magnitude more complicated than a human being. Do you think God had a creator?"
A: "No, no - God is 'simple' and therefore needs no creator."

So in your view, this response is a red herring?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Simple" means "without parts," not "uncomplicated"; "incomprehensible" does not mean "unknowable."

God without parts?

Then maybe is not simple nor complicated. He just Is. I mean, God is pretty complicated to me. I can't figure out life in a single life time. I'm sure life is pretty complicated. Just look at our brains and bodies, etc... a lot of "parts".

I would not be surprised because the nature of god is the same (assuming, as usually, we are talking about the abrahamic god).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Sorry but I still think this whole discussion is like arguing about whether Santa is fat or thin.

 

[prometheus11]

Considering the things that have been said and the links posted, your comments do not even rise to the level of idiotic. It just childish argumentativeness -- though I suppose it could be willful ignorance, we live in two entirely incommensurable worlds or that you lack the conceptual means to comprehend what has been said.

Regardless, you should have at least addressed the issues of penguin's post.

How would you respond to someone who said those same words to you?

 

[Reflex]

Regardless, you should have at least addressed the issues of penguin's post.

How would you respond to someone who said those same words to you?

I'd probably just shake my head, walk away and mutter "moron" under my breath. On the other hand, if it wasn't willful ignorance on my part, I'd want to know what the hell he was talking about and do some reading, starting with articles linked to and the recommended books.

 

[prometheus11]

I'd probably just shake my head, walk away and mutter "moron" under my breath. On the other hand, if it wasn't willful ignorance on my part, I'd want to know what the hell he was talking about and do some reading, starting with articles linked to and the recommended books.

You believe your response was appropriate and mature, then? Why not address the issues in that post?

 

[Reflex]

You believe your response was appropriate and mature, then? Why not address the issues in that post?

As long as one side insists on making a category error and straw man the issue, what's there to talk about?

 

[Willamena]

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 .

I agree. God is not defined by predicates, but I don't think it's a case of not understanding. It's just a case of being.

 

[prometheus11]

As long as one side insists on making a category error and straw man the issue, what's there to talk about?

He posted a common argument and the hypocrisy within it and then asked for your assessment as to whether or not it was a "red herring."

Your answer as to it being a red herring or not and why would expose the strawman category error better than dismissal with a good bit of mudslinging, IMO.

 

[Willamena]

You believe your response was appropriate and mature, then? Why not address the issues in that post?

I think it was more honest.

 

[Willamena]

"Simple" means "without parts," not "uncomplicated"; "incomprehensible" does not mean "unknowable."

"Without parts" means "without analysis."

 

[Willamena]

The claim that God is simple is normally used as a response to the special pleading in the argument from design

Or just used as a claim.

A: "Human beings are too complicated to have arisen naturally; they must have been created by God."
B: "But any god capable of designing and creating human beings must be orders of magnitude more complicated than a human being. Do you think God had a creator?"
A: "No, no - God is 'simple' and therefore needs no creator."

So in your view, this response is a red herring?

Yes.

The claim that god is simple is the claim that god is truth.

 

[outhouse]

Considering the things that have been said and the links posted, your comments do not even rise to the level of idiotic. It just childish argumentativeness -- though I suppose it could be willful ignorance

Desperate red herring polemic

You would have to substantiate your claims, and you have never done so. Your trying to draw attention away from your lack of credible statements.

we live in two entirely incommensurable worlds or that you lack the conceptual means to comprehend what has been said.

We can substantiate our claims, when will you?

 

[Willamena]

Out of curiosity, what does the claim that god is simple have to do with Creationism?

 

[Willamena]

On a side note, I have a marvelous recipe for red herring...

 

[outhouse]

I'd want to know what the hell he was talking

If you had the knowledge, you would not have to ask that question.

Sir you need bullets in a gunfight.

 

[Willamena]

We can substantiate our claims...

Please do so.

 

[Willamena]

So God can only be conceived by analogy?

Of course not.