God is simple, not complex

[Gambit]

The word simple.

It doesn't appear that you any explanation on how I am equivocating.

 

[psychoslice]

If you don't care about the subject matter (simplicity and complexity), then I suggest you find another thread. (Thinking is permitted on my threads; non-thinking (which apparently you are promoting) is not.)

But you yourself haven't shown any of that, all you have shown is that you don't want anyone to have their own opinion, lets face it, are you correct in all you say ?.

 

[Gambit]

Maybe its does have something to do with the topic, but you just cannot see it ?.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with the topic. But I understand why you are coming to his defense. You're another individual who has a track record of making drive-by comments on my threads that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter at hand. Unfortunately, this is a common practice on this forum.

 

[psychoslice]

No, it doesn't have anything to do with the topic. But I understand why you are coming to his defense. You another individual who has a track record of making drive-by comments on my threads that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter at hand. Unfortunately, this is a common practice on this forum.

Ha, get a job why don't you, your acting like a big kid who wants his own way, I have seen this right though your whole thread, you need to grow up, and learn to listen.

 

[Curious George]

It doesn't appear that you [have] any explanation on how I am equivocating.

Simple has two definitions...Google them. You have used both...they are not interchangeable.

 

[Gambit]

Simple has two definitions...Google them. You have used both...they are not interchangeable.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how exactly I am equivocating. Until then, I will not respond.

 

[Curious George]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how exactly I am equivocating. Until then, I will not respond.

I understand thinking is permitted here, I figured I wouldn't have to connect the dots for you. After all, it would be much more simple if you could do it.

That god is simple, and therefore not composed of characteristics , is not a simple concept. So, that god, or rather a group of people's abstract concept of god, is composed of one part means little with regard to god being the simplest explanation for anything. Especially when the concept of god as simple, is anything but.

 

[Gambit]

I understand thinking is permitted here, I figured I wouldn't have to connect the dots for you. After all, it would be much more simple if you could do it.

That god is simple, and therefore not composed of characteristics , is not a simple concept. So, that god, or rather a group of people's abstract concept of god, is composed of one part means little with regard to god being the simplest explanation for anything. Especially when the concept of god as simple, is anything but.

You're making a straw man argument. I never argued that the doctrine of divine simplicity is a simple doctrine to intellectually grasp. In fact, I argued it is quite the contrary. And I never argued that God is the simplest explanation. I argued that God is the most parsimonious explanation.

 

[Curious George]

You're making a straw man argument. I never argued that the doctrine of divine simplicity is a simple doctrine to intellectually grasp. In fact, I argued it was quite the contrary. And I never argued that God is the simplest explanation. I argued that God is the most parsimonious explanation.

Lol

 

[psychoslice]

You're making a straw man argument. I never argued that the doctrine of divine simplicity is a simple doctrine to intellectually grasp. In fact, I argued it was quite the contrary. And I never argued that God is the simplest explanation. I argued that God is the most parsimonious explanation.

Come on tell us the truth, do you really know what your talking about, I know I don't lol.

 

[Curious George]

You're making a straw man argument. I never argued that the doctrine of divine simplicity is a simple doctrine to intellectually grasp. In fact, I argued it is quite the contrary. And I never argued that God is the simplest explanation. I argued that God is the most parsimonious explanation.

And here I thought you were trying to convey that the monotheistic god of the abrahamic religions required the least expenditure of mental gymnastics. I guess I was mistaken.

 

[Gambit]

Lol, I don't think paradoxical is the right word.

Paradoxical is the appropriate word.

 

[Gambit]

And here I thought you were trying to convey that the monotheistic god of the abrahamic religions required the least expenditure of mental gymnastics. I guess I was mistaken.

Sorry to disappoint you. But theology requires not only the analytical mind, but also the intuitive mind.

 

[Curious George]

Paradoxical is the appropriate word.

I love words. If you want to outline how divine simplicity is "paradoxical" to the analytical mind, please do so. But, I wasn't trying to argue that let alone suggest it.

 

[psychoslice]

Sorry to disappoint you. But theology requires not only the analytical mind, but also the intuitive mind.

Ha, intuitive mind could be anything, we all have different intuitive thoughts, so who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry to disappoint you. But theology requires not only the analytical mind, but also the intuitive mind.

Good thing I have both. Use of language, however, requires the analytical mind.

 

[Gambit]

Good thing I have both. Use of language, however, requires the analytical mind.

It has been my experience that atheists are rather weak in their intuitive capacities. After all, it is the intuitive mind which is the seat of the spiritual faculty.

 

[psychoslice]

It has been my experience that atheists are rather weak in their intuitive capacities. After all, it is the intuitive mind which is the seat of the spiritual faculty.

Spiritual faculty, please explain ?.

 

[Gambit]

Spiritual faculty, please explain ?.

It's a.k.a. faith.

Theology has traditionally been defined as faith seeking understanding. What this means it that theology requires the intuitive mind (that which perceives the whole) to work in tandem with the analytical mind (that which breaks down in parts).

 

[Curious George]

It has been my experience that atheists are rather weak in their intuitive capacities. After all, it is the intuitive mind which is the seat of the spiritual faculty.

Well, a lot of people like to make generalizations. I am happy to serve as another exception to another person's "experience"of people. But my intuition seems like quite the tangent, so I can't imagine you would rather discuss that than the topic at hand.