God is simple, not complex

[outhouse]

The logic system you are then employing becomes necessary to understand

Definitely, but they also know they cannot lay their cards down, or they are easily cornered.

 

[Lighthouse]

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.

Outhouse uses the claim of having to have biblical knowledge... so even applying biblical knowledge...

Outhouse still comes up with defining and having concepts of "God" as "a" being or "a" supernatural deity" or "a" God with parts, "a" God with substance, "a" deity."

Applying biblical knowledge also, God is "love," "good," "light," "one," etc.

Meanings of Hebrew, Greek words used for "God" range from a wide variety of meanings such as "to be," "I will become," "goodness," etc.

Even "a" being is catostrophically different than "Supreme Being."

Being: existence, life, living, reality, actuality, nature, essence, psyche.

Even "a" deity is catostrophically different than "deity."

There is nothing in the bible that states that God is Outhouse's definition or conceptions.

When outhouse wishes to prove that love, light, one, good, goodness, existence, life, living, reality, actuality, nature, essence, psyche, breath all do not exist.... he can continue his ranting.

 

[Lighthouse]

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.

Well at least you've struck the corner and do a splendid job of teaching everything that God is not.

 

[Curious George]

More difficult to follow? Perhaps. Inconsistent? No,

It seems to require paraconsistent logic, which is not standard. That's fine, we can leave it so that the contradiction is allowed there, but my worry is, since everything follows from this contradiction, then how does such a contradiction impact that which follows. It is not something we can isolate.

 

[outhouse]

Well at least you've struck the corner and do a splendid job of teaching everything that God is not.

I have not even addressed the concept yet. Sorry Charlie

So far I have just stopped you from redefining god

 

[Lighthouse]

Take it up with Oxford


re·li·gion
[riˈlijən]
NOUN

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

Divine simplicity has nothing to do with the knowledge and conceptions that you have.

God is without parts, not a thing, a superhuman, a deity, a being, or with substance.

You are arguing for "a" God with parts in a debate about God without parts.

 

[Lighthouse]

I have not even addressed the concept yet. Sorry Charlie

So far I have just stopped you from redefining god

You've redefined God along with many religions from its classical divine simplicity and use the logic that since its mainstream and how most religions teach it must be the true definition of God.

 

[outhouse]

Divine simplicity has nothing to do with the knowledge and conceptions that you have.

God is without parts, not a thing, a superhuman, a deity, a being, or with substance.

You are arguing for "a" God with parts in a debate about God without parts.

I know more theist reject your concepts then all atheist combined.

Divine simplicity is not knowledge nor accepted as the status quo. It is an opinion not followed by most or even known about, it is a philosophical argument NOTHING more.

 

[Lighthouse]

I know more theist reject your concepts then all atheist combined.

Divine simplicity is not knowledge nor accepted as the status quo. It is an opinion not followed by most or even known about, it is a philosophical argument NOTHING more.

"More theist"... lol. Arguing using logic of a popularity contest now. How desperate?

 

[outhouse]

You've redefined God along

Nope I follow how people change it, I study how people change it. AND I see exactly how your NOW trying to change it.

Sorry buck stops here.

 

[Lighthouse]

I know more theist reject your concepts then all atheist combined.

Divine simplicity is not knowledge nor accepted as the status quo. It is an opinion not followed by most or even known about, it is a philosophical argument NOTHING more.

You have no knowledge of what divine simplicity is, so until you're aware and get over your own perceptions and definitions of God... go argue where the current knowledge that you have is valid.

 

[outhouse]

You have no knowledge of what divine simplicity is

Stop it. You have no credibility or authority to talk down to anyone.

Divine simplicity is not knowledge nor accepted as the status quo. It is an opinion not followed by most or even known about, it is a philosophical argument NOTHING more.

YOU have not began to address the different views within it.

 

[Lighthouse]

Nope I follow how people change it, I study how people change it. AND I see exactly how your NOW trying to change it.

Sorry buck stops here.

Which is you following a false popularity contest and playing follow the crowd. .. the very that changed it to begin with. You fit right in.

 

[Lighthouse]

Stop it. You have no credibility or authority to talk down to anyone.

Divine simplicity is not knowledge nor accepted as the status quo. It is an opinion not followed by most or even known about, it is a philosophical argument NOTHING more.

Knowledge is knowledge. You're talking down and have no credibility to discuss something that you have no knowledge of. If you want to discuss what you do have knowledge of, I'll discuss that in another thread. Your knowledge is irrelevant here. I'm sorry that stings and eliminates your ego from the equation ... but it is what it is. I'm sorry if this offends you.

 

[outhouse]

Knowledge is knowledge. You're talking down and have no credibility to discuss something that you have no knowledge of. If you want to discuss what you do have knowledge of, I'll discuss that in another thread. Your knowledge is irrelevant here.

Divine simplicity is not knowledge nor accepted as the status quo. It is an opinion not followed by most or even known about, it is a philosophical argument NOTHING more.

 

[outhouse]

The god of classical theism is only an argument, not an actual god.

The sad thing is you fail at picking on atheist, when more theist reject classical theism then all atheist combined

 

[Lighthouse]

Stop it. You have no credibility or authority to talk down to anyone.

Divine simplicity is not knowledge nor accepted as the status quo. It is an opinion not followed by most or even known about, it is a philosophical argument NOTHING more.

YOU have not began to address the different views within it.

Correction, you have no knowledge of what divine simplicity is... therefore it is not knowledge to you. Become aware and come back.

 

[Lighthouse]

The god of classical theism is only an argument, not an actual god.

The sad thing is you fail at picking on atheist, when more theist reject classical theism then all atheist combined

Read the reply to Curious George.

Your actual God is how you define God modern day based upon how man has changed its classical use.

And you will likely be the first to tell modern day theists they are wrong.

It's not a popularity contest.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This thread sort of reminds me of a statement made by Galileo Galilei.

He said: "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."

I think this applies to the Bible; and understanding who God is. If you follow Galileo's principle, similar to Occam's Razor, then the Trinity is wrong.

 

[outhouse]

then the Trinity is wrong.

It is to many. When I was 12 they tried to tell me about the trinity, I said that doesn't make any sense.


That's was the first seed to atheism, life watered it from there.