God is simple, not complex

[outhouse]

Please define the word religion.

Belief and worship of a deity

 

[Lighthouse]

Belief and worship of a deity

That is a subjective definition, there is no universally accepted definition. Perhaps check into the origin of the word and its meaning.

Even then, the ones you are debating here are not discussing the concept of deities or any belief or worship of those deities. . or mythology.

 

[outhouse]

That is a subjective definition, there is no universally accepted definition. Perhaps check into the origin of the word and its meaning.

Even then, the ones you are debating here are not discussing the concept of deities or any belief or worship of those deities. . or mythology.

Take it up with Oxford


re·li·gion
[riˈlijən]
http://www.religiousforums.com/javascript:void(0)
NOUN

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps check into the origin of the word and its meaning.

You may be out of your league sir/mam

I'm not a philosopher selling the philosophical concept of a god, in a religious forum where we have hundreds of years of combined knowledge on the topic from many religions that exist.

No thank you, but no thank you.

You don't get to talk down to anyone while dancing around philosophically, avoiding being cornered and doing little else.

 

[outhouse]

What are you defining is the question? A god created in a philosophical classroom?

 

[outhouse]

there is no universally accepted definition

That ONLY applies to god, not religion.


The majority of people on the planet live the said definition above, making your "subjective definition" comment factually false.

 

[Lighthouse]

You may be out of your league sir/mam

I'm not a philosopher selling the philosophical concept of a god, in a religious forum where we have hundreds of years of combined knowledge on the topic from many religions that exist.

No thank you, but no thank you.

You don't get to talk down to anyone while dancing around philosophically, avoiding being cornered and doing little else.

This entire thread has been well beyond your pay grade. It's been humorous watching you trying to debate something that is completely not even what others are talking about. You're still unaware of that.

Stick to your concepts of what God is then and apply them where they are applicable. . they are not applicable here.

All of your own concepts are philosophical concepts unless you can show me that your mind and knowledge are outside of you.

 

[Reflex]

You were the one who introduced change by implying movement. If there is movement there is change. That is why that discussion of movement even analogous movement is wrong unless we are operating with paraconsistent logic...and even then. I am not talking about spatial movement here. But movement in any form requires change.

"Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature" implies movement, yes, but it does not imply change. Remember, we're talking about an eternal Absolute: its eternity is time-transcending, not time everlasting. If I were to express the genesis of things that have a beginning I might say: "Before the beginning that never was there was One, and the One reflected upon itself and thereby became many." Would you understand that movement, this eternal becoming or eternal self-reflecting, as change? Why? In this scenario, the acting nature of the One is the source and cause of change but does not itself undergo any change whatsoever. God-as-he-is-within-himself is immutable--changeless and without parts. It's not like God woke up one morning and decided to create a universe. That kind of belief is for children and atheists. Rather, the material universe is the space-time image-shadow of the Real.The act of creation falls not upon God-as-he-is-within-himself, but is eternally manifested as it is conditioned and controlled by the coordinated functionaries of his infinite and divine reality.

 

[Curious George]

That is a subjective definition, there is no universally accepted definition. Perhaps check into the origin of the word and its meaning.

Even then, the ones you are debating here are not discussing the concept of deities or any belief or worship of those deities. . or mythology.

If I am not mistaken, the people still involved in advocating for divine simplicity are discussing their understanding of God as described from multiple sources but the "cornerstone" of this understanding is divine simplicity akin to that as originally described by anslem, and further developed by Aquinas. Outhouse has extensive knowledge on the cultures, philosophy, and religions that from which these concepts were authored, if not birthed. Moreover, he has a strong grasp on the Greek philosophy that led to the conceptions. I understand that you are distinguishing God from the conceptions of God and gods from which your conception evolved; but, if you believe he is mistaken about the relevance, perhaps you should ask him why he feels the origins are pertinent and then you could discuss that.

 

[Reflex]

“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.” So with respect to my last post, you have to understand that I am most definitely NOT telling it the way it is. Rather, it is a way of understanding.

 

[Reflex]

Even then, the ones you are debating here are not discussing the concept of deities or any belief or worship of those deities. . or mythology.

It's not an easy message to get across.

 

[Curious George]

"Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature" implies movement, yes, but it does not imply change. Remember, we're talking about an eternal Absolute: its eternity is time-transcending, not time everlasting. If I were to express the genesis of things that have a beginning I might say: "Before the beginning that never was there was One, and the One reflected upon itself and thereby became many." Would you understand that movement, this eternal becoming or eternal self-reflecting, as change? Why? In this scenario, the acting nature of the One is the source and cause of change but does not itself undergo any change whatsoever. God-as-he-is-within-himself is immutable--changeless and without parts. It's not like God woke up one morning and decided to create a universe. That kind of belief is for children and atheists. Rather, the material universe is the space-time shadow of the Real.The act of creation falls not upon God-as-he-is-within-himself, but is is eternally manifested as it is conditioned and controlled by the coordinated functionaries of his infinite and divine reality.

Sorry, it was not the first portion of the quote that the implication arose. It was:

... "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.
."

This is from whence the movement comes.

The notion that creation is merely a consequence of God's acting nature doesn't itself imply movement. This is because we can refer to action at least analogously based upon static presence that affects something. But this is not what you are discussing. Rather you are discussing something with "absolute volition." Thus, implying a contradiction. This doesn't in itself make the concept indefensible, just more difficult to follow. The logic system you are then employing becomes necessary to understand.

 

[outhouse]

It's been humorous watching you trying to debate something that is completely not even what others are talking about

Keep talking down to people while running in the other direction.

 

[outhouse]

it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature"

Where do you get this evidence?

we're talking about an eternal Absolute:

Where is this based from?

 

[outhouse]

It's not an easy message to get across.

Its not a message. It is a debating tactic I wont let him use.

 

[outhouse]

Mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute

What is an absolute? what are you describing as absolute? another man made definition?

 

[outhouse]

Remember, we're talking about an eternal Absolute: its eternity is time-transcending, not time everlasting.

Unsubstantiated

You are talking about your idea only, not of anything absolute you could ever begin to define as time-transcending


Do you just make this stuff up as you go?


Provide sources with links to what you posit.

 

[outhouse]

This entire thread has been well beyond your pay grade

You have not shown the least bit of knowledge on the topic, but you do know rhetoric very well its seems.


All your do is dancing around verbally and opinionative about a concept you know you cannot even begin to address without being cornered.

 

[outhouse]

perhaps you should ask him why he feels the origins are pertinent and then you could discuss that.

Thank you for the kind words above.

That is the crux of the matter. It is the foundation they cannot escape verbally dancing around a lack of evidence.

Without religion, there is no concept of god, and if you don't go to the origin of what they call god, and follow the evolution of god, and don't have a clue of the changes made over centuries. You don't have any credibility talking about the concept, because you just don't know god at all.

Theistic philosophy students are just predictable in their every move.

This it is a clear case of we must use their philosophical classroom definition of the god concept that was debated in the classroom, or they don't want to play. Because that's all they know and little else it seems. I was honestly hoping for more.


I will give hats off to reflex for being honest enough to admit he was interested in debating classical theism and I can accept a little condescending attitude with a smile knowing people are passionate about their knowledge and defensive when they are at least [hopefully] attending universities.

 

[Reflex]

This doesn't in itself make the concept indefensible, just more difficult to follow. .

More difficult to follow? Perhaps. Inconsistent? No,