(May 10, 2025 at 9:42 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 7:39 pm)Alan V Wrote: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything

Since divine simplicity is a fundamental point in Christian theology, this sentence is Dawkins announcing that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Or it's Dawkins saying that he understands Christian theology just fine and it's Christians that have no idea what they're talking about. Just because you can put words next to each other doesn't make them sensible. Divine Simplicity has all the hallmarks of a religion trying to backpedal out of the theological corner that a few omnis painted them into via abuse of terms and without shred of evidence. "These words, they mean the opposite of what they ought to, now shut up and eat it."

(May 10, 2025 at 10:48 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 9:42 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Since divine simplicity is a fundamental point in Christian theology, this sentence is Dawkins announcing that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

New Atheism is so millenial.

It's kind of funny to see which former fan-boy is still defending those guys, and which one is like "Richard who?"

(May 11, 2025 at 12:50 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 10:48 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: New Atheism is so millenial.

It's kind of funny to see which former fan-boy is still defending those guys, and which one is like "Richard who?"

It's more funny how he still gets under theist's skin since you can't stop talking about him no matter what the topic is.

(May 11, 2025 at 1:32 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(May 11, 2025 at 12:50 am)Belacqua Wrote: It's kind of funny to see which former fan-boy is still defending those guys, and which one is like "Richard who?"

It's more funny how he still gets under theist's skin since you can't stop talking about him no matter what the topic is.

Ayup. Professor Dawkins is living rent-free in Bel's head.

Boru

(May 10, 2025 at 9:07 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 7:39 pm)Alan V Wrote: He went on: "Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.  This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.  Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.  God, in the sense defined, is a delusion; and, as later chapters will show, a pernicious delusion."

Dawkins lives in North Oxford. Oxford probably has a higher percentage of people who know theology well than just about any other city on the planet. 

Why didn't Dawkins get on his bicycle and visit one of them, so that he could have it explained to him why this whole thing is an argument against something which they don't believe? 

It is certainly true that God, "in the sense defined" by him, is a delusion.

Really? I would have picked Vatican City.  

Boru

(May 11, 2025 at 12:50 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 10:48 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: New Atheism is so millenial.

It's kind of funny to see which former fan-boy is still defending those guys, and which one is like "Richard who?"

What's truly funny, is the idea that any poor argument against any concept of deity, in any way evidences any deity. I don't need to demonstrate that invisible unicorns aren't real Bel. I don't care how theists define their deity, most don't even try, they just sneer at me for asking why they think it is real. And the Christian religion on its own, has over 45k different sects and denominations globally, answering every claim in a single book would be impossible. 

If any deity exists, and it wants me to know it, then it has failed pointedly to do so. As have the arguments of every adherent of every religion I have seen, but again if you think there is a compelling reason to believe in an extant deity, then by all means offer it.

What's telling is how this goes unanswered. Well except for John's circular reasoning fallacy of course, that assumed his conclusion a priori, and yet was offered as evidence. "God created everything, therefore everything is evidence for god", is only true if we accept god created everything, why would we do that? Especially as John is busy claiming evidence doesn't exist, he is trying to prop his fallacy, on a branch he's already cut off. 

So an entire thread, and the only reason offered is fallacious.

What Bel conveniently leaves out is that Dawkins is not arguing against the (somewhat esoteric) doctrine of divine simplicity, but against the common, populist Christian view of God. I'm confident that if rank-and-file Christians were to be asked to describe God, they'd largely agree with Dawkins definition.

And, FTR, divine simplicity is not an argument for the existence of God. It is a description offered after a priori accepting that God exists.

Boru

(May 11, 2025 at 5:04 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm confident that if rank-and-file Christians were to be asked to describe God, they'd largely agree with Dawkins definition.

Absolutely not. What lol?

(May 11, 2025 at 5:28 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 11, 2025 at 5:04 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm confident that if rank-and-file Christians were to be asked to describe God, they'd largely agree with Dawkins definition.

Absolutely not. What lol?

You don’t think workaday Christians believe that God ‘created the universe and everything in it, including us’?

Boru

(May 10, 2025 at 9:07 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 7:39 pm)Alan V Wrote: He went on: "Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.  This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.  Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.  God, in the sense defined, is a delusion; and, as later chapters will show, a pernicious delusion."

Dawkins lives in North Oxford. Oxford probably has a higher percentage of people who know theology well than just about any other city on the planet. 

Why didn't Dawkins get on his bicycle and visit one of them, so that he could have it explained to him why this whole thing is an argument against something which they don't believe? 

It is certainly true that God, "in the sense defined" by him, is a delusion.

(May 10, 2025 at 9:42 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 7:39 pm)Alan V Wrote: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything

Since divine simplicity is a fundamental point in Christian theology, this sentence is Dawkins announcing that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The point which theologians often seem to miss is that the majority of believers do not believe in their rarified definitions of God, and that atheists critique ALL of the notions of God, typically starting with the most popular ones.

Further, I can't believe you skipped right over my correction of your idea that Dawkins only addressed the "simplest, most childish" idea of God. He certainly did not.

You are also calling the majority of believers "childish" and "delusional," which is exactly Dawkins' point.