God is simple, not complex

[Gambit]

Would you agree that divine simplicity is not so simple a concept?

I agree that it is paradoxical (i.e. it appears contradictory to the analytical mind).

"Simplicity is difficult for twisted minds." - A Course in Miracles

 

[Curious George]

Not even a little bit.

Alas,

I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.

Does not allow others to analyze anything.

 

[Parsimony]

I'm not a Christian, but I basically accept that philosophical theology that has developed in the Christian tradition. All three of the Abrahamic faiths accept the doctrine of divine simplicity.

So you do think He is omniscient then?

 

[psychoslice]

I have already explained that God is without parts and thus simple. For more details, I suggest you read the link I provided you in the OP.

No I want a simple answer, just a sentence will do, can't be more simple than that can we ?.

 

[Curious George]

I agree that it is paradoxical (i.e. it appears contradictory to the analytical mind).

"Simplicity is difficult for twisted minds." - A Course in Miracles

Lol, I don't think paradoxical is the right word.

 

[Tumah]

I'm not a Christian, but I basically accept that philosophical theology that has developed in the Christian tradition. All three of the Abrahamic faiths accept the doctrine of divine simplicity.

At at least two of them actually practice it!
Also, I think Baha'i is also considered an Abrahamic faith, although I'm not confident about that statement.

 

[Gambit]

Hmm well used quote when the competition is between one vs. many, but not so when the competition is one vs. none.

Actually, there is no competition. Why? Because the theist does have an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing while the atheist does not,.

 

[Gambit]

At at least two of them actually practice it!

Are you alluding to the conflict between unitarianism and trinitarianism?

 

[psychoslice]

Actually, there is no competition. Why? Because the theist does have an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing while the atheist does not,.

But an explanation for something that doesn't exist doesn't mean it does exist.

 

[Tumah]

Are you alluding to the conflict unitarianism and trinitarianism?

Well trinitarianism anyway. Once you can label three aspects, you're not really simple.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, there is no competition. Why? Because the theist does have an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing while the atheist does not,.

Perhaps you see it as such. My point, however, was this would be an equivocation on your part.

 

[Gambit]

Perhaps you see it as such. My point, however, was this would be an equivocation on your part.

How exactly am I equivocating?

 

[LuisDantas]

And that thing which should be better defined, do you think it posses some intelligent or an inanimate kind of matter.
How you may define it away of any psychological effect ?

No, I do not find it at all likely that there was some intelligence that decided to create existence.

 

[Gambit]

But an explanation for something that doesn't exist doesn't mean it does exist.

We can clearly infer the existence of a necessary being in order to account for a world of contingent beings, your objection notwithstanding.

 

[LuisDantas]

I assume that many atheists are parroting an argument that Professor Dawkins (evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist) made in his book "The God Delusion."

Again, you are mistaken. Many of us reached similar conclusions on our own. They are that obvious.

In that book, he argued that science attempts to explain the complex by reducing it to the simple. He continued to argue that God cannot qualify as an explanation for anything because God himself is complex and therefore requires an explanation for his own complexity. But Professor Dawkins apparently has a basic theological misunderstanding: God is without parts and therefore simple, not complex.

Actually, it is rather theology that is unsuitable as a make-do cosmology.

(...)

God is not only the most parsimonious explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, God is the only explanation. (It should be noted that atheists have no explanation whatsoever for the mystery of existence other than to co-opt the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo - minus God.)

Nonsense. You are attempting to elevate your psychological need to the level of cosmic mystery. And then to cosmic _revealed_ mystery by force-feeding a name to it.

 

[LuisDantas]

We can clearly infer the existence of a necessary being in order to account for a world of contingent beings, your objection notwithstanding.

We can infer a whole lot of things that are utterly fictional.

They are still fiction.

 

[Gambit]

Well trinitarianism anyway. Once you can label three aspects, you're not really simple.

I agree that trinitarianism is not as simple as unitarianism. But simplicity is not the only factor here. You also have to solve the philosophical problem of the one and the many. As such, we must invoke some kind of dialectic.

 

[Gambit]

Again, you are mistaken. Many of us reached similar conclusions on our own. They are that obvious.

Actually, it is rather theology that is unsuitable as a make-do cosmology.

Nonsense. You are attempting to elevate your psychological need to the level of cosmic mystery. And then to cosmic _revealed_ mystery by force-feeding a name to it.

I don't see anything in the above that even begins to address the points I raised in my previous post.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't see anything in the above that even begins to address the points I raised in my previous post.

That is probably why you raised them in the first place. Alas, I can't help you any further.

 

[Gambit]

We can infer a whole lot of things that are utterly fictional.

Wrong! We can only infer that which is rationally justified.