God is simple, not complex

[outhouse]

Your actual God is

I don't have a god

a god does not exist, even for theist who all view the one god concept differently.

Philosophy class is over, this is the real world.

 

[outhouse]

Here is something factual my new philosophical friends.


Every belief you have no matter what it is about theism, god is factually 100% faith based.

 

[Tiapan]

God is simple, not complex

The best example of an oxymoron I have heard, obviously knows SFA about entropy enthalpy and temperature.

Cheers

 

[1AOA1]

Meaning what ?

Your quote can be rephrased as "This is the trivial point which you seem to miss: There isn't an unified position [among different practices] on what 'God' is."

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

Yes, I'm not surprised; the false, pagan teachings that crept into mainstream "Christian" dogma have caused many thinking people to leave it! The trinity and the false doctrine of Hellfire are two of the biggest!!

The Trinity makes God unknowable, and Hellfire makes God unlovable. I an thankful that I was taught, from the Scriptures, that those two doctrines are wrong.

Interestingly, the Bible itself states that it's words would be twisted. It was already happening in the first century, AD.

12 years old, huh? It's great that even real young, you were a deep thinker! In a way, I'm glad, but also sad that the misinformation you were fed, started you on the path to atheism! It's really not surprising, though....just about everything in this world is designed to keep people from getting on the path and coming to know the True God. (Matthew 7:13-14; compare 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9)

The truth is simple. I could show you what I was taught -- and am being taught -- using only the Bible and reasoning, to answer your questions. We can start with any Bible subject you'd like: who God is, hell, death, the Earth's future and mankind on it, why there is suffering & why God is allowing it, happy family life.....anything the Bible discusses. (And it's all anonymous.)

Hope to hear from you. Take care!

 

[Pudding]

Ninety-five percent of your posts appear to be much ado about nothing.

Video response again? Do you got any better alternative to elaborate your opinion???
It's nice to having conversation with you for your rhetoric and evasive manner in response.
I'm done with this meaningless conversation, you can have the last words...

 

[Pudding]

Just trying to be helpful...If it was not, then disregard.

Since the member unable to response according to my previous respective post which have my actual arguments regarding to the op, i can't understand what he wish to discuss with me. It's the same that if your explanation cannot response according to my actual arguments. Quote function will be helpful in this regards.

 

[Pudding]

each one forms a unique spirit.

It's a beliefs and you can't substantiate it by demonstrate it objectively.

no point is all of this life and learning...only to lose any and all in the dust.

Again it's a beliefs/assertion which can't be substantiate by demonstrate it objectively.

Any God A/B/C...etc's believer can use that same reasoning to prove/deduce their version of afterlife exist.
Your reasoning to prove/deduce your version of afterlife does exist is no more convincing than their reasoning to prove/deduce their version of afterlife does exist.
As a result that reasoning is not convincing at all.

 

[Curious George]

God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence?

Yes, God can be view as a parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence.

Why human/universe exists?
Believer a: Because God A did it.
Believer b: Because God B did it.
Believer c: Because God C did it.
...etc.

According to the above example, the explanation is indeed parsimonious, but it doesn't show any evidence to support the validity of those explanation. Therefor it can be view as unsubstantiated claims until any evidence is show up.
In this case, being parsimonious doesn't means the explanation is credible/trustable/true.

With the above example, do you think because the explanation is parsimonious, then its parsimonious makes it credible/trustable/true?
Why i ask that?
That is just some feeling your op have give me, i could be wrong, so i ask for clarify.

I can't understand why you have to mention "God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence" in the op, what is your reason to do so? What message you wish to convey with it?

If your intention is just to compare parsimonious of that explanation with God is simple, in the sense of simple can be view as parsimonious, then i probably can agree with it. Still i can't see any meaningful meaning for doing so.

Part of your op:

The statements itself seems like it's nonsensical.

God is simple, that's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence?

Why does God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence, is because of God is simple? What is the connection?

Your reason for thinking God is simple is because God is without parts.

That makes the statements similar as saying:
God is without parts, that's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence.

In a summary, i don't get why you would link God is simple and God is without parts as the reason that's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence.
Why is that? What is the relevance between them?

If you wants to convey some message imply that because God is a parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence, therefor the explanation is credible/trustable/true, then i disagree with that.

Pudding you asked me to quote the post to which I was referring. This is it.

I was hoping that explaining the op's definition of parsimonious would help you understand the op more clearly. If it didn't help, it is not a big deal. While I disagree with the op on many points, I am pretty sure I understand the doctrine and required ontology enough to answer questions in a non-evasive manner. So, if there is something I can help with go ahead and ask.

 

[Thief]

It's a beliefs and you can't substantiate it by demonstrate it objectively.


Again it's a beliefs/assertion which can't be substantiate by demonstrate it objectively.

Any God A/B/C...etc's believer can use that same reasoning to prove/deduce their version of afterlife exist.
Your reasoning to prove/deduce your version of afterlife does exist is no more convincing than their reasoning to prove/deduce their version of afterlife does exist.
As a result that reasoning is not convincing at all.

that much makes you unique.

like it or not.....each one of us will be different from the next.
after we die God and heaven will sort through the mess.....

 

[james bond]

I don't have a god

a god does not exist, even for theist who all view the one god concept differently.

Philosophy class is over, this is the real world.

You have a god and that is "no god." If you were a complex person, then "no God."

 

[james bond]

I'm not sure whether God is simple or complex, but would think He is simple in the sense He makes complex things look simple. Or defining God is simple, but describing Him is not.

Anyway, the evidence for God is complexity and we are getting closer to being able to measure how complex things in nature are.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm not sure whether God is simple or complex, but would think He is simple in the sense He makes complex things look simple. Or defining God is simple, but describing Him is not.

Anyway, the evidence for God is complexity and we are getting closer to being able to measure how complex things in nature are.

Precisely how complex does something have to be for a god to have made it? You are simply arguing that something is so complex that you cannot understand how it is done, therefore god.

 

[Shad]

Anyway, the evidence for God is complexity and we are getting closer to being able to measure how complex things in nature are.

If complexity is evidence for God then the flaws in the designs of complex entities is evidence of a flawed designer thus an incompetent designer which God can not be as God is perfect. Also people can be mistaken that complexity means a designer merely based on their own lack of knowledge. For example if someone does not understand the mechanism behind the formation of a river so think that a river is complexity they will make a leap of faith to "God did it". This watchmaker argument was refuted in the 1700s, time to catch up with the times...

 

[1robin]

This is to correct a common misunderstanding that many atheists seem to have, namely, the mistaken belief that God is complex. God is simple, not complex. That's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence - for why there is something rather than nothing.

This is absolutely correct. This is the understanding of many high powered philosophers through out history. God being the cause of everything is a disembodied mind. nothing can be as simple.

I would only add a little detail to what you have stated as to why others may not agree. They confuse the complex thoughts of God with what God actually is. What he does and what he is are two different things altogether.