Christians

[downbeatplumb]

You know I don't even ask Christians those questions because I really don't care why they believe what they believe. To even ask starts a debate with no answer and no end. Maybe it's because I've been an Atheist since I was a child. I was an Atheist before I even knew what one really was! After so long I've noticed most of my Atheist friends have also tired of trying to pick the brains of Christians.

I know where your coming from.

But because I have never believed, I find it impossible to understand how seemingly, intelligent rational people can be put their faith in something that is so obviously ridiculous.

I mean that as no slight to the religious.

I just don't get it.

I discuss with them so that I can understand WHY they believe.

I have no real expectation of converting anyone to atheism.

[Retorth]

Yeah when we debate, nobody is expecting to convert anybody...it's a mutual, respectable exchange between two people of different idealogies. At least, thats ideally how it is supposed to go.

[fr0d0]

If your understanding moves forward this is a change process. 'Conversion' is just a big change.

[Edwardo Piet]

Saerules, you're mixing up two different kinds of complexity.

You are mixing up complexity as in complexity that is very complex in reality in how it comes about, with complexity in the sense of 'difficult to understand'.

It may be easier for people to grasp the idea of "goddidit" but for God to actually 'do it', and create the universe - it would require a great deal more complexity than some singularity like the big bang.

Highly complicated Physics books may be harder to understand than simple biology ones. But biological organisms are more complicated than physical particles, because, for a start - biology is made up of chemistry which is made up of physics! There's a whole load more physical complexity in organisms! It's the working parts, etc, that make it so.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Depends how you think of Goddidit Evie. As Jon Paul explained his reasoning (that I agree with) is God is the simple starting force and not a creator of the whole complex thing at once. So I agree with Saerules on the simplicity stance.

[Edwardo Piet]

And all JP does is define God outside of time itself and therefore not need an explanation. He's just defining it that was - he then has to explain that because it's an assertion! God is still complex simply from the shit he does! It does no good to assert that he's simple.

He's the starting force......yeah? So is a big bang singularity, the difference is that the big bang singularity is simple and the universe after that has evidence. If God starts as simple 'pure actuality' then you're basically labelling a singularity until you evidence any of his further developments that actually make him a supernatural creator!

In what way is Jon Paul doing more than simply labelling a singularity as 'pure actuality' that=God? When does he actually evidence the complex stuff that God is apparently capable of afterwards?

By definition, "God" as in a supernatural creator - is complex. If he develops out of simplicity, then that has to be evidenced. If you say that God is simple then you're just labelling simplicity with the word "God", the complexity of a supernatural creator still has no evidence.

I can't argue about evidence and faith with you here, as you know. Luckily faith hasn't been mentioned - and I'm just arguing about Jon Paul's argument since you mentioned it, I'm not going to get into E and F with you here.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Evie

The simplicity of God the creator is precisely the same as with the big bang. It can be a simple nothingness and spark of the beginning of our universe as Jon Paul explained. If this idea is incorrect then so is the big bang theory. It's simply an idea (Actus Primus) that has been thought out to explain something from nothing, like BB theory. I don't see why you have such a problem with it. You want to make God incredibly complex and have him create an even more complex universe. We don't.

[Edwardo Piet]

As I said, if you're labelling something like the BB with "God" that's fine. But God hasn't been explained, the BB has just been labelled God! God himself, as in a supernatural creator, is still left unexplained and is still complex (because he's a supernatural creator) until it is displayed how you get from 'actus purus'/the BB to 'a Supernatural creator'.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Actus Primus is far more than BB. Otherwise God would = BB.

If you can attribute this universe's creation to a singularly simple explanation like the BB is, then you could equally apply that to God, or you are in conflict here surely?

[Rhizomorph13]

Fr0d0,

There is evidence of the BB...

Rhizo