The Christian God is NOT simple.

[Minimalist]

He is love and cannot be not love. He will love us and draw us to him. He is just, and cannot be unjust....

Except for that time when he fucking drowned everyone except his Homeboy, Noah.

[Autumnlicious]

He is love and cannot be not love. He will love us and draw us to him. He is just, and cannot be unjust....

Except for that time when he fucking drowned everyone except his Homeboy, Noah.

Or the time he genocided two towns, women, children and infants included because a bunch of drunken dudes tried to rape his angels...

[Epimethean]

Or the time he bargained with Satan to fuck up Job's life.

[fr0d0]

So the subject IS Divine Simplicity? Wow. Nice of you to admit that finally VOID. And suddenly that's what you've been talking about all along. How odd. I remember Ryft agreeing with me that you had it completely wrong. With that I'll leave it... because your extreme contortions here serve only to vent your frustrations. I don't present DS as my world view. I present it as an idea. That's all it ever was. The meaning of doctrine seems to be lost on you too. As soon as you want to enter into balanced debate I'd be very willing to discuss it. There's really no point with you in your usuall bloody minded mood.

[theVOID]

So the subject IS Divine Simplicity? Wow. Nice of you to admit that finally VOID. And suddenly that's what you've been talking about all along. How odd.

Well geeze fr0d0, What the fuck else did you think a thread called "The Christian God is NOT simple" with an argument that the notion of a plan contradicts the notion of simplicity would be about? And I gota say, if you think that was the first time I had explicitly said I was addressing the notion of divine simplicity you might want to go back and read my posts.

FOR EXAMPLE;

From the THIRD line of my first post; "God is often described as being simple, this is an extremely important claim for any theists as the more complex an explanation is the lower the prior probability of this thing existing"

From my FIRST RESPONSE to you; "Do you really think the appropriate response to an argument against divine simplicity is to simply link to the freakin wikipedia page about it?"

From my SECOND RESPONSE to you; " This argument is different, it does not deal with the nature of minds as the other one did but the nature of information. Both arguments were refutations of the very concept of divine simplicity"

And you're accusing me of not making that clear? That's entirely unreasonable.

I remember Ryft agreeing with me that you had it completely wrong.

My disagreement with Ryft was about time and omniscience (and I concede he was right), it had nothing to do with simplicity and information.

If you think I don't understand the concept why then don't you do your best to explain it to me? I'll overlook the fact that what you've described doesn't really resemble any of the other descriptions of divine simplicity and just accept your definition for this argument - after you're done maybe you can, for the first time in this thread, directly address the argument I've made. If you can show that your conception of divine simplicity is compatible with the nature of information and the implications that has for gods plan then I will happily concede that my argument doesn't work.

With that I'll leave it... because your extreme contortions here serve only to vent your frustrations.

I've asked you for an explanation more than once, If you think I'm 'contorted' why don't you set me straight?

I don't present DS as my world view. I present it as an idea. That's all it ever was.

I never said that mattered, I presented an argument against divine simplicity.

The meaning of doctrine seems to be lost on you too.

That's easily tested, you describe your idea about divine simplicity and I'll go back to the sources I've used and see how alike they are.

As soon as you want to enter into balanced debate I'd be very willing to discuss it. There's really no point with you in your usuall bloody minded mood.

You're not even willing to address the specifics of what it is you believe I don't understand, and half the questions I ask you go completely unanswered.

I would like you to answer the following question I proposed earlier, if you don't mind? Does god communicate ideas?

[The Grand Nudger]

As with his "Material POV".....you'll be disappointed.

[fr0d0]

VOID..

You never specified DS until I mentioned it. There are expositions of the idea from a lot of perspectives on the linked wikipedia page. Where you've addressed the subject it's hard to tell which aspect you're addressing. You seem to be talking about the philosophical angle (divorced from religion). I'm talking about a personal discussion between Ryft and myself in which he agreed that you didn't understand Xtian DS as you were attempting to ridicule once more back then. I really can't be arsed with your empty posturing. You only seem to be able to motivate yourself to engage when you're worked up. Present you with reasonable conversation and you wimp out. I'm sorry VOID you're going to have to carry on without me.

[Anomalocaris]

VOID..

You never specified DS until I mentioned it. There are expositions of the idea from a lot of perspectives on the linked wikipedia page. Where you've addressed the subject it's hard to tell which aspect you're addressing. You seem to be talking about the philosophical angle (divorced from religion). I'm talking about a personal discussion between Ryft and myself in which he agreed that you didn't understand Xtian DS as you were attempting to ridicule once more back then. I really can't be arsed with your empty posturing. You only seem to be able to motivate yourself to engage when you're worked up. Present you with reasonable conversation and you wimp out. I'm sorry VOID you're going to have to carry on without me.

He appeared to have specified DC (divine complexity) from the start, thus he also specified its opposite, DS (divine simplicity), in the manner of negation, fr0d0.

And so what if ryft's fart smell sweet to you? Is he now in your opinion interposed between you and god so that you can assert him to be a higher authority to someone else as well?

[Rayaan]

Present you with reasonable conversation and you wimp out.

I disagree with the last part.

wimp out - (informal) to fail to do or complete something through fear or lack of conviction ... and it doesn't seem like theVOID is afraid to discuss nor dodging anything.

[fr0d0]

Try having with a discussion with him minus the rebel without a cause act.