If there is no proof for the existence of a supernatural realm

gaynorvader

Jakkass wrote: »

This is where I disagree. The question also depends on the source of the knowledge. If God knows only because He created what He knows about, that is very different than knowing independent from what He created. It's kind of like saying, how could you know about what you have just imagined.

The question of whether or not the knowledge existed before the Creation is debatable. How could one know about what doesn't exist? Probably a question you will ask of people who believe in God, but also applicable in this context.

Did the all-knowing God know what he was going to create? hmm

philologos

What is God all-knowing about?
What is all? - I'd suspect all that He had created.
Before all was, what was all, was all contrived in the imagination of God?

gaynorvader

Jakkass wrote: »

What is God all-knowing about?
What is all? - I'd suspect all that He had created.
Before all was, what was all, was all contrived in the imagination of God?

So God does not come under your definition of all? Does this mean you are saying he doesn't exist? For if he exists; he must come under the definition of all.

ColmDawson

Has God really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

philologos

gaynorvader wrote: »

So God does not come under your definition of all? Does this mean you are saying he doesn't exist? For if he exists; he must come under the definition of all.

You're not understanding what I'm actually saying. Before everything existed, everything was merely in God's imagination. Knowledge begins when we are dealing with what is, imagination is dealing with a hypothetical situation.

There are philosophers who regard all existence as just sense data that is made apparent to our senses by God though, which complicates things somewhat. Irishman, Anglican bishop and philosopher George Berkeley came up with this notion

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

You're not understanding what I'm actually saying. Before everything existed, everything was merely in God's imagination. Knowledge begins when we are dealing with what is, imagination is dealing with a hypothetical situation.

God's imagination?? So the entity who created the entire universe had an imagination? And he created the impossible expanse with humans stuck in our corner to worship him.

Sometimes I despair as to how people can believe this stuff.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

God's imagination?? So the entity who created the entire universe had an imagination? And he created the impossible expanse with humans stuck in our corner to worship him.

Sometimes I despair as to how people can believe this stuff.

Any Creator would have to have had an imagination. What was the universe before it was? Nothing other than a mere concept.

As for the rest of your point, I don't see what is so problematic about a vast universe created by God, and God having a relationship with mankind also.

gaynorvader

ColmDawson wrote: »

Has God really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

17.4% approximately.

FISMA

Ush1 wrote: »

Mathematics is the only area of science which can actually ascertain provability.

Thanks for the reply Ush1.

Note: I am not talking about provability but Provability. The lower case p is a loose interpretation of proof. The capital is strict. Do I believe that when I drop a ball it will fall, of course. Ball dropped, case proven. However, when we get strict with our words and pay attention to the best science has to offer. That last experiment does not Prove the ball will drop next time. The ball could fall down, fall up, or hover. There is no knowable link between cause and effect. I think this is where people get confused with my statements.

Respectfully, I disagree with your quote. I think the case of Ptolemy is where I will start.

Ptolemy worked out mathematically that the retrograde motion displayed by planets was possible with an Earth centered galaxy.

Just because something works mathematically, doesn't validate it as truth or proof. It might mean nothing at all.

Also, doesn't every single "proof" in a math book ask you for a level of faith/credulity. A quick look at my old calc book uses at least one of the following words in every proofs: suppose, let, if, and given. Arbitrary statements that are offered without proof - just accept this.

In other words, if you take "this" for granted, I'll prove "that." That's faith/credulity based.

That's my personal belief in what God does. We cannot understand God, but we can observe and hear what "he" has to say. Just because we cannot understand the messenger does not mean the message is invalid.

Also, you must admit that there's a lot of things we do in mathematics that aren't 100% kosher.

Have you ever drawn a line? No, you cannot, it is impossible. A continuum of points, infinitely long, and infinitesimally thin cannot be drawn, not even a line segment. However, when I put pencil to ruler, I get the idea - I'll take it by faith.

Likewise, you cannot draw a right angle. Does this mean we should abandon Algebra, Trig, and Calc? Of course not.

Finally, I am surprised that the mathematicians aren't hammering you for claiming that math is an area of science!:pac::pac::pac:.

Erinfan

After reading all the posts from knowledgeable persons and did not find any satisfactory answer I lean to side with Thomas D'Aquinas who said:

"To One Who Has Faith, No Explanation is Necessary. To One Without Faith, No Explanation is Possible!" St. Thomas Aquinas c. 1225-1274

nozzferrahhtoo

FISMA,

I think something that would be enlightening to you is to look into the word “prove” from an etymology perspective.

In fact nothing in science is proven, ever. Not in the modern meaning of the word. Not one thing in science has been “proved”. Science is about observation and prediction.

The original meaning of the word “prove” is what we now call “test”. Hence the otherwise meaningless expression “The exception which proves the rule”. Clearly if you have an exception, you have not proven the rule but broken it. The original meaning is that the exception TESTS the rule.

Things in science are not “proven” in the way we mean it today. No, what happens is that the evidence and data mounts up to allow us to make a sound probabilistic prediction. We have not “proven” the ball will bounce tomorrow, but everything we know encourages us to act like it will.

The issue with the god concept therefore is not that we can not “prove” or “Prove” there is a god entity. The issue is the complete lack of ANY evidence, argument, data OR reasons to even lend an iota of credibility to the concept at all.

gaynorvader

Jakkass wrote: »

You're not understanding what I'm actually saying. Before everything existed, everything was merely in God's imagination. Knowledge begins when we are dealing with what is, imagination is dealing with a hypothetical situation.

There are philosophers who regard all existence as just sense data that is made apparent to our senses by God though, which complicates things somewhat. Irishman, Anglican bishop and philosopher George Berkeley came up with this notion

I understand what you're trying to say, I just think it's nonsensical as an all-knowing god would, presumably,know all about himself.

As for imagining the universe before its creation, God supposedly exists outside time and so there would be no before, during or after. So maybe he doesn't have an imagination.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the rest of your point, I don't see what is so problematic about a vast universe created by God, and God having a relationship with mankind also.

An actual relationship would involve putting an appearance in more than once every couple of millennium.

God in this instance is like the alleged girlfriend of a kid in school, the picture of who he keeps looks suspiciously like it was cut out of a magazine.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

This is where I disagree. The question also depends on the source of the knowledge. If God knows only because He created what He knows about, that is very different than knowing independent from what He created. It's kind of like saying, how could you know about what you have just imagined.

The question of whether or not the knowledge existed before the Creation is debatable. How could one know about what doesn't exist? Probably a question you will ask of people who believe in God, but also applicable in this context.

That's kind of like saying that Thomas Edison sat down one day to randomly mess with glass and tungsten and was extremely surprised when he ended up with a light bulb. That's not how it works, he set out to make a light bulb knowing in advance that that's what he wanted to do. God would have to have known exactly what kind of universe he wanted before making it. The idea that he didn't doesn't make any sense and also contradicts any idea that he has a plan for the world.

And as I said, both god's knowledge and his mind are complex. You are only dealing with one aspect of his complexity and for some reason asking at what point it came into existence as if the question has any relevance. Regardless of when this happened we have both the problems of infinitely complex knowledge and and infinitely complex mind neither of which had an external designer.

The problem of the existence of complexity is the question that was first asked in order to invoke a god
Once a god is invoked we are still left with exactly the same question. All that's changed is we are puzzling over god's complexity instead of our own.
The question remains unanswered.
God is not an explanation for complexity, he is a redundant level of complexity that people try to find excuses for so they don't have to explain it, either by declaring that god's complexity for some reason doesn't have to be explained even though complexity is why we invoked god in the first place or dishonestly declaring that god is simple

The only logical solution for the source of complexity is that it arose from simplicity as evolution describes for biological systems. Invoking a god does not answer the question, it just pushes it back a level

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's kind of like saying that Thomas Edison sat down one day to randomly mess with glass and tungsten and was extremely surprised when he ended up with a light bulb. That's not how it works, he set out to make a light bulb knowing in advance that that's what he wanted to do. God would have to have known exactly what kind of universe he wanted before making it. The idea that he didn't doesn't make any sense and also contradicts any idea that he has a plan for the world.

I think this reasoning is a bit flawed again. One could have the intention to end up with a certain product, but this mightn't correlate to knowing 100% about it.

The difference between the case of Edison and the case of God is that Edison is confined to certain restrictions. In the case of God we are talking about before the universe, and all its restrictions existed.

I guess in terms of my philosophy, I'd distinguish between a concept in theory and a concept in reality.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And as I said, both god's knowledge and his mind are complex. You are only dealing with one aspect of his complexity and for some reason asking at what point it came into existence as if the question has any relevance. Regardless of when this happened we have both the problems of infinitely complex knowledge and and infinitely complex mind neither of which had an external designer.

I don't see any reason why God in particular couldn't be simplex in make up.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem of the existence of complexity is the question that was first asked in order to invoke a god
Once a god is invoked we are still left with exactly the same question. All that's changed is we are puzzling over god's complexity instead of our own.
The question remains unanswered.
God is not an explanation for complexity, he is a redundant level of complexity that people try to find excuses for so they don't have to explain it, either by declaring that god's complexity for some reason doesn't have to be explained even though complexity is why we invoked god in the first place or dishonestly declaring that god is simple

I don't think it is dishonest, the concept of divine simplicity has existed since early Christianity, I found on looking through a bit of the philosophy behind it. (At least Augustine of Hippo). So it isn't a contrived response just based on the emergence of biological evolution.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The only logical solution for the source of complexity is that it arose from simplicity as evolution describes for biological systems. Invoking a god does not answer the question, it just pushes it back a level

Unless, as many have pointed out that that God is actually, not made up of complex parts, and indeed that complexity arose out of God's simplicity.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I think this reasoning is a bit flawed again. One could have the intention to end up with a certain product, but this mightn't correlate to knowing 100% about it.

The difference between the case of Edison and the case of God is that Edison is confined to certain restrictions. In the case of God we are talking about before the universe, and all its restrictions existed.

Another difference between Edison and God is that god is supposed to be all knowing so really the question of when he got certain knowledge is moot. Either he always had it or he never had it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I guess in terms of my philosophy, I'd distinguish between a concept in theory and a concept in reality.

I don't see any reason why God in particular couldn't be simplex in make up.

I don't think it is dishonest, the concept of divine simplicity has existed since early Christianity, I found on looking through a bit of the philosophy behind it. (At least Augustine of Hippo). So it isn't a contrived response just based on the emergence of biological evolution.

Unless, as many have pointed out that that God is actually, not made up of complex parts, and indeed that complexity arose out of God's simplicity.

You're back to talking about being made of parts. God isn't made of parts, complex or otherwise. I'm talking about a complex mind, a mind capable of designing an entire universe from scratch with self assembling complex living organisms, of putting himself in one of those bodies and carrying out a 33 year long plan to save those living organisms from damnation, of intervening in the world to help some of these living organisms, of having a single 14 billion year long plan that is ongoing to this day etc etc etc. None of these things are simple, they all require high level thought, in fact much higher level thought than anything a human is capable of.

And if the complexity of our high level thought causes people to imagine that there must be a source for it, invoking a god explains nothing because he is capable of even more complex, higher level thought.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Another difference between Edison and God is that god is supposed to be all knowing so really the question of when he got certain knowledge is moot. Either he always had it or he never had it.

As I've asked already, what is God all knowing about? - If God is all knowing about Creation, then He is all knowing about Creation, in the same way that an artist is all knowing about what he has just painted. The question of whether or not one can be all knowing about what does not yet exist is key.

Did the knowledge pre-date the Creation, or was the "knowledge" at that point the mere imagination of God?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're back to talking about being made of parts. God isn't made of parts, complex or otherwise. I'm talking about a complex mind, a mind capable of designing an entire universe from scratch with self assembling complex living organisms, of putting himself in one of those bodies and carrying out a 33 year long plan to save those living organisms from damnation, of intervening in the world to help certain living organism etc etc etc. None of these things are simple, they all require high level thought, in fact much higher level thought than anything a human is capable of.

Again, I'm not sure you're understanding what Platinga and McGrath actually mean when they are talking about divine simplicity:

This is Augustine's take:

The reason why a nature is called simple is that it cannot lose any attribute it possesses, that there is no difference between what it is and what it has, there is for example, between a vessel and the liquid it contains, a body and its colour, the atmosphere and its light or heat, the soul and its wisdom. None of these are what it contains; the vessel is not the liquid, nor the body the colour, nor the atmosphere the light and heat; nor is the soul the same as its wisdom.

Namely that what is simple does not possess anything other than what it is.

And a summary of Anselm's:

Anselm acknowledges that theists use different statements to speak of God's nature. They say for example, 'God is good', 'God is just', and 'God is wise'. But Anselm argues, we should not think of God as having really distinct attributes. According to Anselm there is no difference between God and anything we might call 'the attributes of God'. For Anselm the attributes we ascribe to God in sentences of the form 'God is X', 'God is Y', and so on, are not discrete realities in God. They are God.

If we look at what Anselm, and Augustine have contributed to the debate, then yes it is certainly reasonable based on either assessment that God is more simplex than what He has created.

There are of course objections to these takes, but certainly it can be argued that God is simple.

All quotations from "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion" 3rd ed. Brian Davies.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

The question of whether or not one can be all knowing about what does not yet exist is key.

I thought god was supposed to be omniscient and outside of time

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

I thought god was supposed to be omniscient and outside of time

What is there to know about if nothing exists?
Yes, God is omniscient, but what is God omniscient about?

It's probably just a point of semantics, but personally I would differentiate something as concept, from something as reality.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

You're not understanding what I'm actually saying. Before everything existed, everything was merely in God's imagination.

Oh right so god had an imagination just like us humans. I mean it's just crazy isn't it; he's (he/she/it?) is just like the particular species that has evolved the mental ability to conjure up such an entity. Crazy coincidence.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

What is there to know about if nothing exists?
Yes, God is omniscient, but what is God omniscient about?

It's probably just a point of semantics, but personally I would differentiate something as concept, from something as reality.

If god is outside of time (which he'd want to be if he created the universe bound by time) then "it doesn't exist yet" doesn't make any sense anymore

liamw

Dades wrote: »

Sometimes I despair as to how people can believe this stuff.

Despair.. good word, I usually think 'tragic'

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

If god is outside of time (which he'd want to be if he created the universe bound by time) then "it doesn't exist yet" doesn't make any sense anymore

Such notions would have certainly been in the divine mind, but whether or not they existed externally to the divine mind is what I am discussing.

Again, I think we're probably on the same track, but I'm making a different distinction in terms of what knowledge is.

liamw wrote: »

Oh right so god had an imagination just like us humans. I mean it's just crazy isn't it; he's (he/she/it?) is just like the particular species that has evolved the mental ability to conjure up such an entity. Crazy coincidence.

A pretty poor objection considering that Christians generally believe that humanity was created in the image and likeness of God.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

As I've asked already, what is God all knowing about? - If God is all knowing about Creation, then He is all knowing about Creation, in the same way that an artist is all knowing about what he has just painted. The question of whether or not one can be all knowing about what does not yet exist is key.

Did the knowledge pre-date the Creation, or was the "knowledge" at that point the mere imagination of God?

God is all-knowing about everything. That's what all knowing means.

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, I'm not sure you're understanding what Platinga and McGrath actually mean when they are talking about divine simplicity:

This is Augustine's take:

Namely that what is simple does not possess anything other than what it is.

And a summary of Anselm's:


If we look at what Anselm, and Augustine have contributed to the debate, then yes it is certainly reasonable based on either assessment that God is more simplex than what He has created.

There are of course objections to these takes, but certainly it can be argued that God is simple.

All quotations from "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion" 3rd ed. Brian Davies.

I know what their take is on it, their take is an attempt to redefine the word simple to try to make god fit it. If something is indivisible in that it cannot lose any attribute it possesses but this indivisible entity is capable of complex thought then the whole is complex. God is an intelligent being capable of higher level thought and possessing of all knowledge. He is capable of much higher level thought than the thought capabilities we possess that cause people to insist that there must be a source for it in the first place. These attempts to redefine god as simple are nothing but are intellectual dishonesty. Something that can make a conscious decision to design from scratch our entire universe and all the life in it and carry out a single unwavering plan for that universe and all the life in it over billions of years is not simple, regardless of how many parts it's made of and if its divisible or not. That, unlike god, is quite simple

philologos

How is it dishonest to hold to a centuries old view about God?

The only way it could really be dishonest, is if immediately theologians drew up the idea of divine simplicity, rather than it being an idea that was held by people since the Middle Ages.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, you seem to think that divine simplicity only arose out of the idea of biological evolution. How is it dishonest to hold to a centuries old view about God?

No I don't think that. The teleological argument has been around for a hell of a lot longer than the theory of evolution and it's been invalid for the same reason all that time: god is more complex than the complexity that he is invoked to explain.

philologos

If you wish to take that view that's fine, but I'm clearly saying that people can argue that God Himself is actually more simplex than the Creation, and if that is true that has a major implication for Dawkins' argument.

That said, I still find his application of what is true in biology to physics to be inadequate.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If you wish to take that view that's fine, but I'm clearly saying that people can argue that God Himself is actually more simplex than the Creation, and if that is true that has a major implication for Dawkins' argument.

Yes people can argue that and they can use the word simplex instead of simple to try to make it look like they're being intellectual but they're just playing with the definition of words, focussing only on one aspect of god that can theoretically be defined as simple (or simplex) and ignoring the fact that he possesses an extremely complex mind and extremely complex knowledge. It's no different than William F. Vallicella's assertion that god's complexity doesn't have to be explained, it's an attempt to define their way out of the problem even though their definition ignores major aspects of god and doesn't make any sense. If I defined black as white I would win any argument that black is white but doing so wouldn't make any sense

Jakkass wrote: »

That said, I still find his application of what is true in biology to physics to be inadequate.

Then you're still, still, still, depressingly still, not getting the point. It's a logical position that explaining complexity with more complexity explains nothing. Biology is just used as an example of this. If explaining complexity with more complexity doesn't work for biology then it doesn't work for physics either. The only way out of this logical problem is to engage is dishonest attempts to redefine the word simple to try to make god fit it

kilmuckridge

FISMA wrote: »

That last experiment does not Prove the ball will drop next time. The ball could fall down, fall up, or hover. There is no knowable link between cause and effect. I think this is where people get confused with my statements.

I think you are getting confused here. There is no knowable/provable link between my words and what I mean, just an understanding built up over years of experience and hearing and reading the words in context, and inductive inferences being drawn. It is as likely that the ball will fall up as that the above is a declaration of independence for the inhabitants of the moon

FISMA wrote: »

Ptolemy worked out mathematically that the retrograde motion displayed by planets was possible with an Earth centered galaxy.
In other words, if you take "this" for granted, I'll prove "that." That's faith/credulity based.

Mathematical proofs are generally confined to the mathematical domain, and build on premises which, if not true, invalidate the proof. This is not faith in the premises, merely a qualification of the proof.
Ptolemy did not attempt to prove the Earth-centric model of the universe, that was taken for granted by him and his contemporaries, he merely provided a model whereby the positions and movements of the planets could be predicted, with the earth at the centre of that model

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes people can argue that and they can use the word simplex instead of simple to try to make it look like they're being intellectual but they're just playing with the definition of words, focussing only on one aspect of god that can theoretically be defined as simple (or simplex) and ignoring the fact that he possesses an extremely complex mind and extremely complex knowledge. It's no different than William F. Vallicella's assertion that god's complexity doesn't have to be explained, it's an attempt to define their way out of the problem even though their definition ignores major aspects of god and doesn't make any sense

It's nothing about appearing intellectual, it's about a series of thought in the Philosophy of Religion that has existed since the Middle Ages. Platinga in particular is a philosopher of religion, so it is reasonable to think that he subscribes to this form of thinking.

Of course there are other philosophers of religion who take other approaches.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then you're still, still, still, depressingly still, not getting the point. It's a logical position that explaining complexity with more complexity explains nothing. Biology is just used as an example of this. If explaining complexity with more complexity doesn't work for biology then it doesn't work for physics either. The only way out of this logical problem is to engage is dishonest attempts to redefine the word simple to try to make god fit it

It's premature to apply such an explanation to physics. If we cannot know that this is true of physics, there is no point in applying what we know from biological evolution to physics.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nothing about appearing intellectual, it's about a series of thought in the Philosophy of Religion that has existed since the Middle Ages. Platinga in particular is a philosopher of religion, so it is reasonable to think that he subscribes to this form of thinking.

Of course there are other philosophers of religion who take other approaches.

Then please explain the difference between simple and simplex


Also, since you didn't address the rest of my post I assume you have conceded my point?

Jakkass wrote: »

It's premature to apply such an explanation to physics. If we cannot know that this is true of physics, there is no point in applying what we know from biological evolution to physics.

Saying that complexity demands an explanation and then explaining it with more complexity explains nothing. Assuming for a moment that you did accept that god is complex, why exactly could this be applied to biology but not physics?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then please explain the difference between simple and simplex

I've given you the common definition given by those who propose that God is simple (as in divine simplicity).

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, since you didn't address the rest of my post I assume you have conceded my point?

Leave such assumptions aside please.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Saying that complexity demands an explanation and then explaining it with more complexity explains nothing. Assuming for a moment that you did accept that god is complex, why exactly could this be applied to biology but not physics?

This is only if we are agreed that God is actually more complex than the Creation that He has created. This is something that we've been thrashing out over in the Christianity forum, and I'm not sure if that is something that can actually be established with any degree of certainty.

I do think that the take by Augustine, Anselm and others does give a reasonable explanation as to why God can be considered simple in structure.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've given you the common definition given by those who propose that God is simple (as in divine simplicity).

Ah so simplex is the theistic version of simple, i.e: "not really simple but we've defined it as such because our whole argument falls apart is god isn't simple simplex"

Jakkass wrote: »

Leave such assumptions aside please.

Well you didn't address my point and that can only lead me to assume that you concede it. Continuing at later dates to make the same point having not addressed the contrary points is dishonest no?

Jakkass wrote: »

This is only if we are agreed that God is actually more complex than the Creation that He has created.

That's all I wanted to hear. You must now square the circle that a being capable of designing an entire universe with self assembling complex life and carrying out an aeons long plan for the life in that universe is simple simplex or your whole argument falls apart. Although it's not only true if god is more complex. If god is complex at all and we have made the assertion that complexity requires explanation then god's complexity still requires explanation and the question remains unanswered

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

A pretty poor objection considering that Christians generally believe that humanity was created in the image and likeness of God.

I'm aware of that

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah so simplex is the theistic version of simple, i.e: "not really simple but we've defined it as such because our whole argument falls apart is god isn't simple simplex"

No. It is the commonly accepted definition within Philosophy of Religion. There are also atheist philosophers of religion, and there are many who would argue that God is complex.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well you didn't address my point and that can only lead me to assume that you concede it. Continuing at later dates to make the same point having not addressed the contrary points is dishonest no?

Absolutely not. Your latter points were pretty much a repetition of points that you have previously made that I have already dealt with in this thread.

The simplicity of God has been explained and defined by its proponents, on numerous occasions. I've even gone and directly quoted from an impartial text on the subject (I.E - It also includes a section on how God might be complex) as to the explanations that are given for God's simplicity.

So complaining about the simplicity of God not being explained by Platinga, McGrath and others is just ridiculous. There is no shortage of explanations. The only thing is that you don't agree with them.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's all I wanted to hear. You must now square the circle that a being capable of designing an entire universe with self assembling complex life and carrying out an aeons long plan for the life in that universe is simple simplex or your whole argument falls apart. Although it's not only true if god is more complex. If god is complex at all and we have made the assertion that complexity requires explanation then god's complexity still requires explanation and the question remains unanswered

Dawkins' arguments are structured around assumptions, both about the nature of physics, and about God, that are incomplete and disagreeable. That's what is problematic. It is also problematic to assume that the laws of science must also apply to God which if you read the Wikipedia article was a key area of Dawkins' dissatisfaction at theologians in Cambridge.

If Dawkins' assumption isn't correct about either 1) God, or 2) physics, then his entire argument is essentially bunk.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

No. It is the commonly accepted definition within Philosophy of Religion. There are also atheist philosophers of religion, and there are many who would argue that God is complex.

Absolutely not. Your latter points were pretty much a repetition of points that you have previously made that I have already dealt with in this thread.

The simplicity of God has been explained and defined by its proponents, on numerous occasions. I've even gone and directly quoted from an impartial text on the subject (I.E - It also includes a section on how God might be complex) as to the explanations that are given for God's simplicity.

So complaining about the simplicity of God not being explained by Platinga, McGrath and others is just ridiculous. There is no shortage of explanations. The only thing is that you don't agree with them.

Oh they explain it alright and I have dismissed their explanations as intellectually dishonest bullshit because they are narrowing down the definition of simple to mean "comprised of few parts" when the people who are calling god complex are talking about god's mind, not his physical make up. They are not addressing the issue.

Jakkass wrote: »

Dawkins' arguments are structured around assumptions, both about the nature of physics, and about God, that are incomplete and disagreeable. That's what is problematic. It is also problematic to assume that the laws of science must also apply to God which if you read the Wikipedia article was a key area of Dawkins' dissatisfaction at theologians in Cambridge.

If Dawkins' assumption isn't correct about either 1) God, or 2) physics, then his entire argument is essentially bunk.

Yes Jakkass if an arguments assumptions are incorrect the argument doesn't work. Well spotted.

Also I love when people make the argument that you can't apply logic to god. That's essentially what the whole purpose of religion is and people are perfectly happy to do it when their conclusions support god, for example all those times you said that you can't see any reason why god wouldn't be interested in his creation. If we are to accept these arguments then god becomes totally unknowable and therefore irrelevant. We can't just pick and choose when we can apply logic and reason to god and then declare that it can't be done whenever someone does it to argue against the god concept

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh they explain it alright and I have dismissed their explanations as intellectually dishonest bullshit because they are narrowing down the definition of simple to mean "comprised of few parts" when the people who are calling god complex are talking about god's mind, not his physical make up. They are not addressing the issue.

You are free to dismiss them as much as you wish. Don't expect others to.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes Jakkass if an arguments assumptions are incorrect the argument doesn't work. Well spotted.

Which is what is difficult about Dawkins' argument. They are based entirely on contingents and wishful thinking in those contingents.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also I love when people make the argument that you can't apply logic to god. That's essentially what the whole purpose of religion is and people are perfectly happy to do it when their conclusions support god, for example all those times you said that you can't see any reason why god wouldn't be interested in his creation. If we are to accept these arguments then god becomes totally unknowable and therefore irrelevant. We can't just pick and choose when we can apply logic and reason to god and then declare that it can't be done whenever someone does it to argue against the god concept

TBH, if God created the universe, and the laws that bind the universe, it's wholly unreasonable to then say that God must also be bound by such laws.

It's nothing about picking and choosing, it's about what is reasonable.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Which is what is difficult about Dawkins' argument. They are based entirely on contingents and wishful thinking in those contingents.

No it's not wishful thinking. The atheist says "god's mind is complex". The theists respond "God's physical make up isn't complex". They're dodging the issue.

Jakkass wrote: »

TBH, if God created the universe, and the laws that bind the universe, it's wholly unreasonable to then say that God must also be bound by such laws.

It's nothing about picking and choosing, it's about what is reasonable.

This is not about applying the physical laws of our universe, it's about applying logic and reason to god. If what you say is true then the whole of religion and any attempt to understand the will of god or god himself is a waste of time because we are attempting to know the unknowable.

MagicMarker

Hmmm, doesn't seem to be embedding for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgv8Um0W9uM&feature=related

A good interview between McGrath & Dawkins along the lines of what's being discussed here.

gaynorvader

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nothing about appearing intellectual, it's about a series of thought in the Philosophy of Religion that has existed since the Middle Ages. Platinga in particular is a philosopher of religion, so it is reasonable to think that he subscribes to this form of thinking.(irrelevant)

You still failed to explain why you used the word simplex as opposed to simple.

Jakkass wrote:

Of course there are other philosophers of religion who take other approaches.

It's premature to apply such an explanation to physics. If we cannot know that this is true of physics, there is no point in applying what we know from biological evolution to physics.

I think he meant that the logic is flawed and so won't work any better for physics than it does for biology.

Sam Vimes

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think he meant that the logic is flawed and so won't work any better for physics than it does for biology.

Exactamundo

Sam Vimes

MagicMarker wrote: »

Hmmm, doesn't seem to be embedding for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgv8Um0W9uM&feature=related

A good interview between McGrath & Dawkins along the lines of what's being discussed here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgv8Um0W9uM

You just put the bit after the v in the tag, Cgv8Um0W9uM for this video

philologos

gaynorvader wrote: »

You still failed to explain why you used the word simplex as opposed to simple.

They're the same. I've given 2 definitions from within philosophy as to what divine simplicity is, and what it means.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think he meant that the logic is flawed and so won't work any better for physics than it does for biology.

The "logic" that Dawkins is using itself is based on biological evolution.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The "logic" that Dawkins is using itself is based on biological evolution.

You need to stop saying that. It's not. Dawkins logic is: "if complexity requires explanation as theists claim, explaining it with more complexity explains nothing". That has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. Nothing. No matter how many times you say otherwise. Nothing.

Where biology evolution comes in is that he gives it as as an example of something that does give an explanation for complexity without simply imagining another redundant level of complexity: that it arose from simplicity. Your "inappropriately applying biology to physics" line does not refute Dawkins logic. No matter how many times you say otherwise. It doesn't. The only way to refute Dawkins logic is to successfully argue that god is simple, both his physical make up and his mind. The theists have argued that his physical make up is simple and ignored the fact that the atheists are talking about god's mind. They cannot argue that god's mind is simple because it's demonstrably not.

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The only way to refute Dawkins logic is to successfully argue that god is simple, both his physical make up and his mind. The theists have argued that his physical make up is simple and ignored the fact that the atheists are talking about god's mind. They cannot argue that god's mind is simple because it's demonstrably not.

He also has to show that there is only one god...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0RpMW2PlLQ

Morbert

People will declare God to be beyond logical scrutiny and then, in the same breath, declare that the universe must logically have a designer. Not only are they applying double standards (The universe, after all, is not obliged to be formulated in our language of logic), they are making assumptions about what complexity implies. This is what can be gleaned from Dawkins's rebuttals of teleological arguments.

Morbert

Morbert wrote: »

People will declare God to be beyond logical scrutiny and then, in the same breath, declare that the universe must logically have a designer. Not only are they applying double standards (The universe, after all, is not obliged to be formulated in our language of logic), they are making assumptions about what complexity implies. This is what can be gleaned from Dawkins's rebuttals of teleological arguments.

It's as fun as when they try using thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

It's as fun as when they try using thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution

Nah the best part is if current day thermodynamics was completely overthrown. They would then use it as argument saying that evolution agreed with the "classical" notion but not the new one it replaces. Conveniently forgetting they disagreed with the "classical" notion.