God is simple, not complex

[Gambit]

Just FYI. The following is the SEP's (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) definition of the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS).

According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, God is free of matter-form composition, potency-act composition, and existence-essence composition. There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is thus in a sense requiring clarification identical to each of his attributes, which implies that each attribute is identical to every other one. (source: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Divine Simplicity)

 

[Gambit]

I just use "god" all the time now. It's an extra key-stroke to capitalize it.

It's an extra key-stroke to capatilize "I" too. Either you're interested in communicating effectively or you're not.

 

[Gambit]

Indeed.

Good!

 

[outhouse]

Just FYI. The following is the SEP's (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) definition of the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS).

One opinion of many, that states older peoples opinions on the matter that hold no credibility what so ever.

 

[prometheus11]

I would think that any being worthy of the title would embody both extremes and the spectrum between "simple" and "complex."

 

[outhouse]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Is not even relevant to our discussion, nor in context.


When we talk about "god"....... we are NOT talking a philosophical unsettled argument of the god concept.

 

[Gambit]

That can be established in the course of debate. Do you see any problems with my procedure as laid out in my previous post?

I have already articulated why it is problematic. If you are interested in communicating effectively, you will make the appropriate changes.

 

[outhouse]

I have already articulated why it is problematic.

\
It is only problematic to you personally. No one else is really having an issue

YOU have not supplied a link to a credible source for said definition either.

 

[Gambit]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Is not even relevant to our discussion, nor in context.


When we talk about "god"....... we are NOT talking a philosophical unsettled argument of the god concept.

I understand why you are trying to reframe the debate of this thread, you are clearly ignorant of philosophical theology and thus ill-equipped to debate the doctrine of divine simplicity. If you want to argue against some straw-man mythological God, be my guest. But you should not expect any more responses to your posts by me.

 

[prometheus11]

I have already articulated why it is problematic. If you are interested in communicating effectively, you will make the appropriate changes.

I disagree for the reasons I provided in my description of my usages.

 

[prometheus11]

I understand why you are trying to reframe the debate of this thread, you are clearly ignorant of philosophical theology and thus ill-equipped to debate the doctrine of divine simplicity. If you want to argue against some straw-man mythological God, be my guest. But you should not expect any responses to your posts by me.

Maybe that'd be preferential to some?

 

[outhouse]

you are clearly ignorant of philosophical theology

Not what we are debating here. This is not your classroom

and thus ill-equipped to debate the doctrine of divine simplicity

What is there to debate?


Your trying to define something that has no evidence outside mythology.


And when we look at divine simplicity, you need to state which religious context you wish to debate, chrisian, jewish, or islam.

 

[outhouse]

If you want to argue against some straw-man mythological God

When will you start?

You have not even stated if your debating the christian god or the jewish god or the Islamic god, as they are all defined differently.

No other god concept exist in this argument.

 

[Willamena]

It's an extra key-stroke to capatilize "I" too. Either you're interested in communicating effectively or you're not.

One is personal, though. There is no "i".

It doesn't compare.

 

[outhouse]

If you want to argue against some straw-man mythological God,

What god has ever been proven to exist outside mythology?

 

[Willamena]

What god has ever been proven to exist outside mythology?

I assume you mean proposed rather than proven. The philosophical "ground of being."

 

[Gambit]

Maybe that'd be preferential to some?

I suspect that it is more preferential, especially for those who lack a basic understanding of philosophical theology. We cannot have a fruitful debate on a subject matter unless both of us have a basic understanding of the subject matter. Obviously, atheists do not have a basic understanding of the doctrine of divine simplicity, hence the reason for the original post of this thread.

 

[outhouse]

assume you mean proposed rather than proven.

Nope which god actually exist outside mythology?

 

[prometheus11]

I suspect that it is more preferential, especially for those who lack a basic understanding of philosophical theology. We cannot have a fruitful debate on a subject matter unless both of us have a basic understanding of the subject matter. Obviously, atheists do not have a basic understanding of the doctrine of divine simplicity, hence the reason for the original post of this thread.

All atheists? All who believe in a god?

How broad is that brush you use?

Are you really suggesting that the difference in a capital letter or lower case will affect truth and its determination?

 

[outhouse]

The concept of god factually evolved with time.

The concept factually changed form one culture to the next.

There is no such thing as "the" god.... All gods to date evolved in a religion, and each defined it differently.

There is no such thing as one god to humanity as a whole. One god only exist to certain people in certain geographic locations.