Hey VOID. I was merely referencing the page for you as I thought you still didn't understand it. No need for me to summerise or repeat what is stated there, it's quite succinct enough. ie you've made the same argument before and some of us pointed out that you should perhaps bone up on the concept if you're interested. To spell it out again... Christians don't see growing complexity but instead simplicity.
You're approaching the subject from a material perspective, which is great and commendable, but this is never addressed in historical beliefs of the ancient middle east. A problem arises when we try to shoehorn ideas of material origins onto metaphysical propositions. Either side steps outside of it's remit commenting upon the other.
Unless you address the propositions of divine simplicity put forward by the likes of Aquinas, then to state the counter to that seems like an empty statement. You're starting a crit of something you're unwilling to address it seems.
"The plan" isn't an attribute, no. Is what is resultant from God. Those things aren't God, but of God as they came from him. I won't go into that any further, because it's Aquinas again, and I really think you need to address his points.
The evidence line - well you've been presented countless times with what constitues evidence, so I'll assume your comments here to be disingenuous.
You're approaching the subject from a material perspective, which is great and commendable, but this is never addressed in historical beliefs of the ancient middle east. A problem arises when we try to shoehorn ideas of material origins onto metaphysical propositions. Either side steps outside of it's remit commenting upon the other.
Unless you address the propositions of divine simplicity put forward by the likes of Aquinas, then to state the counter to that seems like an empty statement. You're starting a crit of something you're unwilling to address it seems.
"The plan" isn't an attribute, no. Is what is resultant from God. Those things aren't God, but of God as they came from him. I won't go into that any further, because it's Aquinas again, and I really think you need to address his points.
The evidence line - well you've been presented countless times with what constitues evidence, so I'll assume your comments here to be disingenuous.
