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
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
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
