God is simple, not complex

[outhouse]

That's not a single quote but extractions from different quotes which are used by you to indicate the nativity or homeland of the God you are addressing.

The so called Abrahamic god was a compilation of two deities from different locations.

One a long time Mesopotamian deity that the Canaanites who would become Israelites used as the father of all gods.

The other may have migrated from Midian territories into the Canaanite pantheon just before the bronze age collapse

 

[outhouse]

It's a cheap and sleazy method to dismiss topics and sling mud.

Typical of the desperate who thought they could come in here where we have decades of combined knowledge. Verses their semester or two of philosophy.


Its funny my philosophy professor has me lecture on this, so I can teach them about the origins god. He was smart enough to understand that philosophy does not teach the required knowledge to debate the topic. He is a strong atheist and fighting against theistic philosophers. Now I understand his context. At first I was put off by it. I'm going to go back and him now after seeing why he had his stance.


On a side note, philosophers debate theism in their own court, and there is on ongoing battle between the top philosophers and they are sided to theism and atheism. It only takes 0ne scholar to silence them all. Most parrot philosophical debates they have read up on from ancient and a few modern source, but it is still from ignorance because most do not have the historical biblical knowledge.

 

[Reflex]

I do have something relevant to say, and I have said it. A member posted a worthy reply that has to do with the claim about god's simplicity or complexity. You dismissed it with mudslinging and labeling, but did not address the idea and certainly you used no reasoning

In short, you got upset and dodged the issue. You should address the issue that member raised that has to do with the claim of this thread..

That member was using a category error to make a "point." I'll ask again: What is the "issue" if the parties are just talking past each other? Have I not the right to summarily dismiss something as irrelevant precisely because it's irrelevant? Especially when it follows links to explanatory articles and recommended books?

Atheism is not a "category error."

Of course not. The reasons given are.

I've done several decades worth of reading of theology, myth, and arguments from both sides. I know what I'm talking about.

So why the category error? In all fairness, however, I will be the first to admit that many theists are guilty of the same thing.

It's a cheap and sleazy method to dismiss topics and sling mud. It makes YOU look bad, not the person you're responding to.

In our hyper-sensitive culture, referring to one's method of pointing to the truth as "cheap and sleazy" is really just a way of calling that person "heretical" or "politically incorrect." I wear that title as a badge of honor.

Three books that I recommend are:

God Without Parts by James E. Dolezal
The Last Superstition by Edward Feser
The Experience of God by David Bentley Hart​

Those books are relatively easy reads. Scholastic Metaphysics, also by Feser, is subtitled A Contemporary Introduction and is more difficult, but it makes many of the same points--none of which atheist posters have addressed.

 

[prometheus11]

That member was using a category error to make a "point." I'll ask again: What is the "issue" if the parties are just talking past each other? Have I not the right to summarily dismiss something as irrelevant precisely because it's irrelevant? Especially when it follows links to explanatory articles and recommended books?

Of course not. The reasons given are.

So why the category error? In all fairness, however, I will be the first to admit many theists are guilty of the same thing.

In our hyper-sensitive culture, referring to one's method of pointing to the truth as "cheap and sleazy" is really just a way of calling that person "heretical" or "politically incorrect." I wear that title as a badge of honor.

Three books that I recommend are:

God Without Parts by James E. Dolezal
The Last Superstition by Edward Feser
The Experience of God by David Bentley Hart​

Those books are relatively easy reads. Scholastic Metaphysics, also by Feser, is subtitled A Contemporary Introduction and is more difficult, but it makes many of the same points--none of which atheist posters have addressed.

Of course you can evade and dismiss any claim or post. It just seems needless to do so with rude disdain and mudslinging. Why not just ignore the post?

It's one thing to turn down a request for a date; it's another to explain that you're rejecting them for having crossed eyes and being fat.

 

[Willamena]

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.

He posted an argument that was special pleading. Many people find god simple who have no concept of creationism or intelligent design.

Well, okay, one person. But it's hard for any person to believe they stand alone.

 

[prometheus11]

He posted an argument that was special pleading. Many people find god simple who have no concept of creationism or intelligent design.

He could have at least provided some argument that matched his snarky judgment and subsequent dismissal. It comes off as lazy and unnecessarily obtuse. That respectable behavior might go a long way for those readers of the thread who might be on the fence as to agreeing or disagreeing with his stance.

 

[Reflex]

"Without parts" means "without analysis."

True. But "Mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. Mind is unifying of all divergencies, but in the very absence of such divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts."

 

[Willamena]

He could have at least provided some argument that matched his snarky judgment and subsequent dismissal. It comes off as lazy and unnecessarily obtuse. That respectable behavior might go a long way for those readers of the thread who might be on the fence as to agreeing or disagreeing with his stance.

I didn't perceive snarkiness, but okay.

 

[Willamena]

True. But "Mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. Mind is unifying of all divergencies, but in the very absence of such divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts."

Whose quote?

It's so anti-Alan.

 

[prometheus11]

I didn't perceive snarkiness, but okay.

Would you mind reading it again? Id be surprised if you would appreciate receiving such a post.

 

[Gambit]

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

I stand by my previous claim: "The term "God" (with an upper case "G") is employed specifically to reference the monotheistic deity. The term "god" (with a lower case "g") is employed specifically to reference a polytheistic deity." The following sources support my claim.

Full Definition of God
capitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
(source: Merriam-Webster)

God: [without article] (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
(source: Oxford Dictionaries)

 

[Willamena]

I stand by my previous claim: "The term "God" (with an upper case "G") is employed specifically to reference the monotheistic deity. The term "god" (with a lower case "g") is employed specifically to reference a polytheistic deity." The following sources support my claim.

No offense, but Merriam-Webster is a excellent source of Americanism.

 

[Willamena]

Would you mind reading it again? Id be surprised if you would appreciate receiving such a post.

I'm an odd one.

 

[Gambit]

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

It has already been explained to you that "God" (with an upper case "G") is not some being of a particular class. God is not merely a being among other beings. But if you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree.

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

 

[Reflex]

Of course you can evade and dismiss any claim or post. It just seems needless to do so with rude disdain and mudslinging. Why not just ignore the post?

Who is doing the evading here? What is the "issue"? if the parties are just talking past each other?

Whose quote?

It's so anti-Alan.

It's from The Urantia Book. And who is Alan?

 

[Gambit]

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

Agreed. Well-stated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I stand by my previous claim: "The term "God" (with an upper case "G") is employed specifically to reference the monotheistic deity.

Sort of: it's used to reference the god of certain monotheistic religions.

The term "god" (with a lower case "g") is employed specifically to reference a polytheistic deity." The following sources support my claim.

No, they don't.

 

[Reflex]

No offense, but Merriam-Webster is a excellent source of Americanism.

Merriam-Webster wasn't written by philosopher-theologians.

 

[Willamena]

It's from The Urantia Book. And who is Alan?

'Nuff said.

 

[Gambit]

Have I not the right to summarily dismiss something as irrelevant precisely because it's irrelevant?

You most certainly do.