God is simple, not complex

[Gambit]

What is the category?

The category error is the mistaken belief that God is merely another being that exists on the same ontological level as other beings. God is not merely another being, but actually being itself in which all other beings depend upon for their very existence.

 

[Curious George]

My Urantia Book sums it up quite well: "Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature." Couple this with the realization that "to deny the possibility of his volitional self-limitation amounts to a denial of this very concept of his volitional absoluteness" and it is easy to understand that creatio ex nihilo can be understood as creatio ex deo -- creation out of nothing apart from himself. I realize that this may be out of step with the standard interpretation, but it seems to work better than ex nihilo. The UB goes on to explain (using my own words here) that the primal differentials of reality are the act and the acted upon; and that the primal relationship is the tension between them. Thus, "God can pass from simplicity to complexity, from identity to variation, from quiescence to motion, from infinity to finitude, from the divine to the human, and from unity to duality and triunity." God is all these things, yet, his unity is absolute and therefore also simple.

."

Movement entails temporality. This entails a violation of the law of non contradiction. Therefore this removes us from the realm of classic theology as classic theology utilizes classic logic. But now the problem is reconciling what form of paraconsistent logic you are employing. It would be much easier if you shared.

This is the crux of this whole "debate." Like I said earlier, "As long as one side insists on making a category error and straw man the issue, what's there to talk about?" What makes this whole thing inane is that the atheists posting don't even try to understand where their category error lies. They say they are knowledgeable, but won't visit the links posted or, if they do, don't ask for clarification. This, in my book, is morally and intellectually reprehensible.

Once again: here and here are links to reviews of the book by Hart.

What prometheus and others are failing to acknowledge is that it has repeatedly been acknowledged that many "believer" make the same category error, but it is an error that is, historically speaking, an aberration.

I have done more than merely tried to understand your perspective on this topic. Yet, I am an atheist posting as well. The problem here is that you are bringing a foreign ontology (constituent ontology) that disregarding tropes theory has not been related to mainstream thought for quite some time. Furthermore, you are requiring a logical system which most people are not even aware exists. How can this in anyway be surprising that some posters are unwilling to see your perspective. First you want them to accept that properties are not some abstract but actually a concrete, then you want them to accept not that varying degrees of a property exist, but rather varying combinations of other properties including matter account for the appearance, (illusion of degree). Next you need them to accept that these properties when in god are analogous because otherwise they would exist in both humans and god that can not be true otherwise god could not be simple. Then, you ask them to disregard their logical system which is counterintuitive. But the kicker is that you don't actually ask them to do these things, rather you seem surprised they haven't already.

Please state in which system of logic we shall continue. Please state which ontology we shall employ. Let us have a discussion for why these are optimal or why they should be avoided.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

God is not merely another being, but actually being itself in which all other beings depend upon for their very existence.

So God = universe?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Agreed. Most skeptics (as well as most believers) are theologically ignorant.

Or perhaps just sceptical of theology.

 

[Gambit]

So God = universe?

No.

 

[Gambit]

Or perhaps just sceptical of theology.

It's understood that skeptics (in the context I employed the term) are skeptical of theology.

 

[prometheus11]

Atheists get that God is a completely different being. Atheists just don't give God's uniqueness a pass on his detectability. Believers don't require that their God meet any standard of evidence to exist, they just presume his existence.

 

[Gambit]

Atheists get that God is a completely different being. Atheists just don't give God's uniqueness a pass on his detectability. Believers don't require that their God meet any standard of evidence to exist, they just presume his existence.

That atheists like yourself require God to be scientifically validated is proof-positive that they just don't get it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It has already been explained to you that "God" (with an upper case "G") is not some being of a particular class.

Repeating a claim over and over is not an explanation.

God is not merely a being among other beings.

... you assert.

But if you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm open to agreeing with you as soon as you provide reasonable justification for me to do so, but I'm not holding my breath.

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

Thomas Aquinas doesn't deserve a lot of the hype he gets, IMO.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The category error is the mistaken belief that God is merely another being that exists on the same ontological level as other beings. God is not merely another being, but actually being itself in which all other beings depend upon for their very existence.

Hand-waving to try to justify special pleading.

 

[prometheus11]

That atheists like yourself require God to be scientifically validated is proof-positive that they just don't get it.

You assume too much. That statement does not represent my "requirements" on god. You shouldn't do that. Perhaps instead of assuming you should have more discussion to find out how I really think on the matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That atheists like yourself require God to be scientifically validated is proof-positive that they just don't get it.

No, it's recognition of the fact that to the vast majority of believers throughout history, "God" (or "god") referred to the being they believed created their world, sent rain and sunshine, wrote or dictated their holy books, sent angels, wielded miracles, helped them in battle, provided them with an afterlife, and answered their prayers. It's only theological revisionists like you who, in the face of a mountain of evidence that the deeds attributed to God have other sources or never happened at all, have decided to do a bait-and-switch.

"Being itself" doesn't write books, send prophets, cure tumours, or demand you go to church on Sunday. It's dishonest to claim that people who believe that God does these sorts of things are really talking about "being itself". If you want to invent a new concept, find a new term.

 

[Reflex]

Movement entails temporality.

This makes no sense at all. Why does movement entail the temporality of the source and cause of movement?

Then, you ask them to disregard their logical system which is counterintuitive.

"Counterintuitive"? Nothing is more self-evident.

But the kicker is that you don't actually ask them to do these things, rather you seem surprised they haven't already.

Surprised? Hell, I'm aghast, shocked, that people don't know the difference between existence and things that have existence.

It's dishonest to claim that people who believe that God does these sorts of things are really talking about "being itself". If you want to invent a new concept, find a new term.

"Find a new term"? What's new about something that's been around a millennia?

I will be giving a lot of thought over the next few days trying to figure out why something so simple and elementary is so difficult for so many to grasp.

 

[Nurion]

That atheists like yourself require God to be scientifically validated is proof-positive that they just don't get it.

True, but neither do you. The whole argument that atheists have regarding God is that He has - depending on the views of the believers - a huge effect on the world.
If God responds to prayers this should be measurable, when compared to people who do not pray.
If God creates storms and earthquakes to punish us for ... I don't know, let's use homosexuality, then those storms should come out of nowhere and not be predictable by science.
Instead we have people that claim to be chosen by God, affected by the things God does and retroactively attribute things that happened to be according to God's will. But when scientists actually test these things, it all disappears into nothingness.

If God interacts with the world, we should see the effects of His actions in the world, which would make them measurable.
If God is merely the unconditional cause of reality, the prime mover, the architect or something else that does not interfere with the world, then there is no use in believing in God, since He is not concerned with our belief. He is nothing more than a universe-creating toaster. And what's the advantage of believing in a universe-creating toaster?

 

[prometheus11]

This makes no sense at all. Why does movement entail the temporality of the source and cause of movement?

"Counterintuitive"? Nothing is more self-evident. Surprised? Hell, I'm aghast, shocked, that people don't know the difference between existence and things that have existence.

"Find a new term"? What's new about something that's been around a millennia?

I will be giving a lot of thought over the next few days trying to figure out why something so simple and elementary is so difficult for so many to grasp.

Reflex, do you realize that you never offer a logical rebuttal to any questions put to you? You just label them as being worthy of dismissal and then dismiss them. Do you think your tactic is likely to sway many who are undecided?

 

[Reflex]

Reflex, do you realize that you never offer a logical rebuttal to any questions put to you? You just label them as being worthy of dismissal and then dismiss them. Do you think your tactic is likely to sway many who are undecided?

I usually offer a logical rebuttal (like, for instance, when I said, "Why does movement entail the temporality of the source and cause of movement?") when there's something to rebut. But why is it that I am required to offer a logical rebuttal and you are not?

True, but neither do you. The whole argument that atheists have regarding God is that He has - depending on the views of the believers - a huge effect on the world.
If God responds to prayers this should be measurable, when compared to people who do not pray.
If God creates storms and earthquakes to punish us for ... I don't know, let's use homosexuality, then those storms should come out of nowhere and not be predictable by science.
Instead we have people that claim to be chosen by God, affected by the things God does and retroactively attribute things that happened to be according to God's will. But when scientists actually test these things, it all disappears into nothingness.

If God interacts with the world, we should see the effects of His actions in the world, which would make them measurable.
If God is merely the unconditional cause of reality, the prime mover, the architect or something else that does not interfere with the world, then there is no use in believing in God, since He is not concerned with our belief. He is nothing more than a universe-creating toaster. And what's the advantage of believing in a universe-creating toaster?

Ever hear of the "Perennial Philosophy"? It's called "perennial" for a reason.

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines:

First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness—the world of things and animals and men and even gods—is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be nonexistent.

Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.

Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, it he so desires, to identify himself with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.

Fourth: Man’s life has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.
​

I suspect that it's because the details or particulars vary so much that people lose interest and the fundamentals get lost.

 

[outhouse]

A category mistake is an error in logic in which one category of something thing is presented as belonging to another category. For example, to say "the rock is alive" assigns the category of life to that which is not alive. Another example would be to say that an idea is the color blue. It mistakenly applies the category of color to a concept in the mind. That's what atheists do here.

You mean our philosophical new friends ??

Who want admit to placing god in context of classical theism?

 

[prometheus11]

I have expressed myself clearly and never simply dismissed another's viewpoint.

As to perennial philosophy, none of your axioms are demonstrable, so you are only able to reasonably debate with other perennial philosophers. (Kind of like Islamists being able to agree on the Koran and debate minutia within it).

 

[outhouse]

an assertion of atheism is not the assertion of a complete philosophical or metaphysical position

Sure it is.

We stand as people who refuse to keep making ancient mens mistake of believing ancient mythology is credible.

Most theist think Santa is a made up character, but the similarities to god are identical, not everyone stops believing in the concept, and accepts reality for what it is.

 

[prometheus11]

Outhouse, I think that when believers claim that atheists "don't have a complete system" or "metaphysical position" it's because atheists don't feel compelled to explain why we are here or why there is existence. They seem to find fault with the honest reply of "we don't know" why we are here, why existence, etc.