Gambit
Well-Known Member
If you sincerely want to "help" me, then I would suggest you attempt to craft some kind of counterargument that actually refutes mine. Until then, I will see no need to modify my position.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God is simple, not complex
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
If you sincerely want to "help" me, then I would suggest you attempt to craft some kind of counterargument that actually refutes mine. Until then, I will see no need to modify my position.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I don't think "not as simple" really makes so much sense. If we replace "simple" with "one" it starts to loose its meaning.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
"Everything should be made as simple as possible,but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Unitarianism has to solve the problem of the one and the many. If it cannot accomplish that, then it has been made too simple.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
What relevance does this have to the subject matter of this thread?
allfoak
Alchemist
God is simple enough for a child to understand.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Well that doesn't mean much at all.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
I would think not . . . why would Christians want you to know the truth?
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Those are the meanings and emotions they assign to the objective universe . . . and it was effortless, the truth always is!
Projecting an intent into existence itself may well be effortless for many people, but that falls way short from making it truth.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
I was replying directly to your post here -> http://www.religiousforums.com/goto/post?id=4550917#post-4550917
So I assumed.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Then how did you manage to reply to the wrong things I said?
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Agreed. But hopefully an adult has a more mature understanding than a child.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
It only means something to those of us like myself who have the capacity to make rational inferences.
I don't think I did. It seems that you misunderstood me or are maybe working under some other sort of confusion.
If you feel that way, it must be because you are using a rather faulty understanding of "God".
"God did it" is at the end of the day just an invitation not to attempt to understand things.
I can't in good faith approve of calling that an answer to the supposed mystery of the origin of existence. That would be lying.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
I'll help you out . . .
EtuMalku said: ↑
The reason that a god is complex and not simple is because what religious adherents are calling God / Deity are the multitudinous processes of the objective universe and its labyrinth of laws and dimensions.
YOU replied:
Hardly, although I appreciate the effort.
What people call "God" are much more relatable sets of hopes, fears and expectations.
There was no effort in posting my understanding of god as the objective universe
I then went on to explain that: "Those are the meanings and emotions they assign to the objective universe . . . and it was effortless, the truth always is!"
To which you replied: "Projecting an intent into existence itself may well be effortless for many people, but that falls way short from making it truth."
I never mentioned the effort needed to project intent into existence . . .
So, here we are . . . confused
So, why do you feel I did not answer your questions? You just demonstrated that I did.
Is this some sort of game?
You can't be implying that I (or anyone else) have some sort of duty to lend prestige to the hopes of some people that their conceptions of God must be literal truth... can you?
Is this some sort of game?
You can't be implying that I (or anyone else) have some sort of duty to lend prestige to the hopes of some people that their conceptions of God must be literal truth... can you?
You have no argument, Gambit. You are not even wrong. Just hopeful.
Fancy wordplay aside, you are in essence asking us to submit to your expectations that we will surrender to vague mystifications because that would make you feel better.
That is not arguing, and is not worth of an actual counterargument. As a matter of fact, it would be wrong or at least misleading to offer a counterargument, because it would encourage the misperception that you offered an argument to be countered.
Don't delude yourself.
Last edited: