Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 23, 2025, 2:52 pm
Thread Rating:
|
The Christian God is NOT simple.
|
 (July 15, 2011 at 4:29 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:(July 15, 2011 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Try having with a discussion with him minus the rebel without a cause act. Cuz he is of the type weak enough to embrace christianity?  
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
Because the rebel flees
 (July 15, 2011 at 5:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Because the rebel flees Fine. Let's hold a real debate for the Debate Forums, VOID versus Fr0d0 on whatever topic. If he 'flees' then we'll set up an environment where both sides must agree to appropriate conduct and well argued posts. The question is, will you? (July 15, 2011 at 5:39 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:(July 15, 2011 at 5:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Because the rebel flees It's ever been the christian way to throw non-sensical gibberish, then, upon having the gibberish utterly demolished, resort to chanting "victory" while sidling off the stage.  (July 15, 2011 at 2:09 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: VOID.. But that's not what you said, is it? You accused me of not making it clear until the post before last. Not only did my second and third post tell you in no uncertain terms that it was exactly what the argument was about, but my OP was abundantly clear in what It was I was addressing, that the notion of a simple God is incompatible with the notion of a plan given the nature of information - I specifically said I was addressing the idea of simplicity in regards to the Christian God, the name given to that concept is none other than Divine Simplicity, so if that was somehow lost on you it means you thought I was talking about some other notion of a simple God - If that is the case then I would love to know what this other concept is, because I've never heard of it. Quote:There are expositions of the idea from a lot of perspectives on the linked wikipedia page. I couldn't give a damn about the wikipedia page, It says nothing about how the concept of divine simplicity is compatible with the nature of information. Quote: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). It's not divorced from religion, It was proposed by religious theists (mostly Christians) to defend their religious beliefs, they wanted to show that the concept of divine simplicity is coherent and doesn't contradict their claims, what I was trying to show that in regards to information (something that I have not seen addressed) the concept does not work - Information, by it's very nature, contradicts the notion of simplicity. Quote: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. Go show me where on that previous argument I ridiculed that which I was trying to show logically impossible. Not only did I not attempt to ridicule it at all, but when shown that my argument failed in regards to time and omniscience I accepted that my argument had a fatal flaw. Quote: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. If you truly gave a shit about having a reasonable conversation you wouldn't have completely ignored the bulk of the questions I asked of you, nor would you have gone this whole time without directly addressing the nature of information.
.
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
I commented on what was interesting to me in the thread VOID. I have no interest in your agenda, and if you act like a prick then I'm hardly inspired to be now am I?
I rolled out a guy interested in your agenda and you ignored him. I guess you were busy. Or something.  (July 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: To continue with the arguments: To correct the above arguments: A) 1. God is immortal and omnipotent. 2. God did die and then raised Himself. 3. Therefore God is omnipotent. B) 1. God is immortal and omnipotent. 2. God did die and raised Himself. 3. Therefore God is immortal. God is not a concept, He is the I AM and that is not nonsense.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
RE: The Christian God is NOT simple.
July 16, 2011 at 3:02 am
(This post was last modified: July 16, 2011 at 3:08 am by Anomalocaris.)
(July 16, 2011 at 2:26 am)Godschild Wrote:(July 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: To continue with the arguments: God is immortal and omnipotent God can not terminate his own existence forever Therefore god is not omnipotent "He is", if He refers to a man who goes by "godschild", would most regrettably not be nonsense. But if He refers to that peculiarly Christian thingy which they call god, then "he is" most certainly is nonsense, and thank man's capacity for eschew superstition for that.  (July 16, 2011 at 3:02 am)Chuck Wrote: God is immortal and omnipotent What if 'god' could terminate his own existence but he simply chooses not to? Would that not be more fair to assume? How would that stop him from being omnipotent? God would be immortal out of choice then, and seen as god doesn't change his mind (apparently) then the two statements could be correct? I'm just playing devil's advocate. 
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
