Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[FarWanderer]

I'm a bit surprised that no one else seems to have picked up on the main argument of TotN's most recent post. His primary argument wasn't that God is ridiculous (although he clearly is expressing that point as well), but that the notion that God is simple is ridiculous. And that the "divine simplicity" doctrine doesn't change the fact.

Personally I don't see where the doctrine is even useful, though. Once the argument that God is simple is in play, then the design argument is forfeit. This is because if simple to complex is the norm, then God isn't required for anything... at all. All we'd need is something, and complex stuff would just happen. Which is, incidentally, the materialist's worldview.

[FarWanderer]

And besides when you know God you can kick back and grab a cold one and laugh at how they deny Him as you are looking right at Him.

Do you really think God would laugh at us, even metaphorically? Joke or not, that's clearly your own feelings on the matter, not God's.

You're making Danmark's case for him.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to iamtaka]

Now that the strawman has been dismantled all that remains is mockery and ridicule. Thanks for the discussion.

The Strawman. Tired of the Nonsense presented an argument against a complex god. Christian theism holds to a simple god. Therefore, the argument does not address the Christian God.

The Dismantling. A link was provided which gives an in depth overview of the doctrine of divine simplicity.

The Mockery and Ridicule. Tired of the Nonsense responded to the dismantling by mocking and ridiculing the notion of divine simplicity.

Given the convoluted and contradictory nature of your belief system, all of it leading to the triad of deities that we are told actually combine to form a single deity which serves as the core of the belief, and then your further contention that this system of belief is actually an example of "divine simplicity," makes mockery of what you claim to believe rather unavoidable I am afraid.

To continue on with this argument, YOUR argument of simplicity:

===========
1. Motivation

What could motivate such a strange and seemingly incoherent doctrine? One central consideration derives from the Anselmian definition of God as maximally perfect, as that than which no greater can be conceived. A God who was less than maximally perfect would not be an absolute reality and appropriate object of worship. A God who was less than ultimate and absolute would be an idol. Now an absolute reality must be a se, from itself, and so not dependent on anything distinct from itself for either its nature or its existence. If God had properties in the way creatures have them, however, he would be distinct from them and so dependent on them. This is the case whether one thinks of a property of x as a constituent of x, or as an entity external to x to which x is tied by the asymmetrical relation (or nonrelational tie) of instantiation. If the properties of x are constituents or ontological (proper) parts of x, then x will depend on them in the same way that any whole composed of parts depends on its parts. But if x is tied to its properties by the asymmetrical relation of instantiation, it is still the case that x will depend on them: if x is F in virtue of x's instantiation of F-ness, then F-ness is a logically prior condition of x's being F. In sum, the divine aseity would seem to require that God be rather have his attributes.

One can also arrive at the simplicity doctrine via the divine necessity. As maximally perfect, as that than which no greater can be conceived, God must be a metaphysically necessary being, one that cannot not exist. A necessary being is one whose possibility entails its existence, and whose nonexistence entails its impossibility. But what could be the ground of this necessity of existence if not the identity in God of essence and existence, possibility and actuality? Saying that God exists in all metaphysically possible worlds does not provide a ground, but merely a graphic Leibnizian representation, of the notion of necessary being. A divine being cannot possess contingent modal status: if God exists, then he is necessary, and if he does not exist, then he is impossible. So if God exists, then there is a very tight connection between the divine nature and the divine existence. The simplicity doctrine assays this ‘tightness’ as identity. The divine simplicity grounds the divine necessity. God is necessary because he is simple. It is easy to see that the divine simplicity also grounds God's possession of essential properties. God has his attributes essentially because he is identical to his attributes. Nothing is more essential to a thing than something to which it is identical.

Besides perfection and necessity, immateriality, eternity, and immutability also seem to point to simplicity as their ground. Because God is simple, he cannot have parts and so cannot have material or temporal parts. And because God is simple, he cannot harbor any unrealized potentialities, and so must be immutable. The centrality of DDS to medieval philosophical theology is shown by its position in the order of topics in Aquinas' Summa Theologica. It occurs as Question 3 right after Question 2 on the existence of God.
==============

And THIS is what you see as perfectly simple and obvious, without a single recourse to assumption or pure make believe?

==============
2. The Question of Coherence

The very notion of an ontologically simple being will be dismissed by many as self-evidently incoherent. Among theists, there are those who will argue that DDS does not cohere with some other theistic commitment such as the doctrine of the Trinity or the divine freedom of the will. The concern of this article is not with such intramural coherence questions, but with the question of whether or not DDS is coherent at all. This broad coherence question is not whether the doctrine is true, or even possibly true; the question is whether it is possible for us to think it without obvious contradiction. Ultimately, the broad coherence question concerns the sort of general ontological framework that would allow DDS to be discussed as a live option as opposed to being dismissed as incoherent from the outset.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
=============

And so we have the great plan of the early Christian philosophers... throw a vast number of words at the argument and then declare the entire process to be "divinely simple." And in all of this you see not the slightest hint of assumption, presupposition and pure make believe at work? SERIOUSLY! If I seemed to be mocking you on this point I must say, TRUST ME, I was acting with restraint. I can only assume that this is not the first time you have been so mocked, because you do seem to be exceptionally touchy around the hind quarters on this subject. An indication that such mockery is pretty much right on target.

[Sir Hamilton]

And besides when you know God you can kick back and grab a cold one and laugh at how they deny Him as you are looking right at Him.

Do you really think God would laugh at us, even metaphorically? Joke or not, that's clearly your own feelings on the matter, not God's.

You're making Danmark's case for him.

Do you know God?

[iamtaka]

I'm a bit surprised that no one else seems to have picked up on the main argument of TotN's most recent post. His primary argument wasn't that God is ridiculous (although he clearly is expressing that point as well), but that the notion that God is simple is ridiculous.

This is precisely why I posed the following question.

Why did Tired of the Nonsense post a long-winded summary?

I understood the argument being made. He presented a long list in an attempt to make the idea of divine simplicity laughable. It could be restated as, "You see all of these attributes? And God is simple? That's absurd!" So, the argument wasn't missed. And that's why he was called the floor for mockery and ridicule.

And that the "divine simplicity" doctrine doesn't change the fact.

Fact? Interesting choice of words. Let's assume that God is indeed complex. Let's that such a God is indeed more complex than RNA. Let's assume that this demonstrates the absurdity of arguments for the necessity of a designer. Does all of this cause any harm to the Christian's argument? No. The line of reasoning replaces the Christian perspective of God with a non-Christian perspective. It does not matter whether a non-Christian believes the Christian perspective of God is complex. It only matters what the Christian believes about God.

Personally I don't see where the doctrine is even useful, though. Once the argument that God is simple is in play, then the design argument is forfeit. This is because if simple to complex is the norm, then God isn't required for anything... at all. All we'd need is something, and complex stuff would just happen. Which is, incidentally, the materialist's worldview.

God as simple does not necessarily forfeit the design argument. There are a host of issues which would have to be explored (e.g., which design argument, the mechanisms for simplicity to complexity, etc.). I can see how, from a materialist perspective, one might conclude the design argument is forfeit, but I think there are too many issues to be explored to claim it necessarily forfeits it. That said, I personally find the design argument to be less appealing.

[iamtaka]

Given the convoluted and contradictory nature of your belief system, all of it leading to the triad of deities that we are told actually combine to form a single deity which serves as the core of the belief, and then your further contention that this system of belief is actually an example of "divine simplicity," makes mockery of what you claim to believe rather unavoidable I am afraid.

Let's assume you are correct. The system makes a mockery of itself. If that is so, then what is gained by mocking and ridiculing it? Nothing. How does such behavior advance the discussion? It doesn't. It actually sets the discussion back.

To continue on with this argument, YOUR argument of simplicity:

My argument? I am not making an argument for a simple god. I am making an argument that Christians believe God is simple. To provide evidence of such, let's return to my first post.

This "uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated than an RNA molecule" is not the god of Christianity. Christian theism adheres to a doctrine of divine simplicity.

Good discussion begins with understanding the interlocutor's argument. To present imaginative arguments one wants their interlocutor to be making does not make for good discussion. Let's put aside those imaginative arguments and actually deal with the arguments presented.

And so we have the great plan of the early Christian philosophers... throw a vast number of words at the argument and then declare the entire process to be "divinely simple." And in all of this you see not the slightest hint of assumption, presupposition and pure make believe at work? SERIOUSLY! If I seemed to be mocking you on this point I must say, TRUST ME, I was acting with restraint. I can only assume that this is not the first time you have been so mocked, because you do seem to be exceptionally touchy around the hind quarters on this subject. An indication that such mockery is pretty much right on target.

Are we going to discuss the arguments or the persons presenting the arguments?

[iamtaka]

Of course they are being manipulative but don't let that bother you. Think about this...they spend all this time studying and criticizing a belief system that they don't even believe in to begin with....rather silly huh? They tear down Christianity but have nothing better to offer. And besides when you know God you can kick back and grab a cold one and laugh at how they deny Him as you are looking right at Him.

It's the repetition which wears on me.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to iamtaka]

Tired of the Nonsense presented a bad argument. Bad arguments rarely advance the discussion. There are more often an impediment.

A bad argument would presumably be any argument you disagree with. Clearly a "bad argument" WOULD be an impediment to advancing "a good argument," as represented by the system of thought which you happen to personally prefer. This is a condition that we refer to as a "debate." It's the sort of thing that often occurs on a debate forum.

Let's assume you are correct. The system makes a mockery of itself. If that is so, then what is gained by mocking and ridiculing it? Nothing. How does such behavior advance the discussion? It doesn't. It actually sets the discussion back.

How exactly is one supposed to address a ridiculous system of thought except by exposing it to ridicule; which is to say, the reasons why it is ridiculous? Heaping praise on it for managing to be so spectacularly illogical would itself be spectacularly illogical. I should also point out that if you are offended by the prospect of seeing your most cherished religious beliefs subjected to ridicule and scorn, boy are you on the wrong forum.

My argument? I am not making an argument for a simple god. I am making an argument that Christians believe God is simple. To provide evidence of such, let's return to my first post.

A simple God? A simple God who is in reality three distinct Beings? Now throw in the rest; a God who is perfectly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and yet who somehow manages to become disappointed and enraged when his creations FAIL to achieve the results that He intended? A Being who is forced to shed His own blood in accordance with His own rules for the failure of his creations to follow His rules? A God who creates a universe with a word, but who is somehow more simple then a rudimentary RNA molecule? If you cannot tolerate anyone mocking such a thought process, I can only suggest that you should attempt to quickly get over it, because you have lived a sheltered life and out here in the real world abject foolishness is quickly subjected to mockery and derision. I should also point out that declining to address such mockery and derision does little to advance your cause, since it is immediately taken for a weakness of logic and the obvious inability to defend such a weakness.

Good discussion begins with understanding the interlocutor's argument. To present imaginative arguments one wants their interlocutor to be making does not make for good discussion. Let's put aside those imaginative arguments and actually deal with the arguments presented.

I actually posted much of your argument for you. The more I post, the more absurdly humorous it becomes. Which was my point in posting it.

Are we going to discuss the arguments or the persons presenting the arguments?

I have a suggestion. Instead of becoming bogged down in the dreary verbiage of Christian theology, why don't we simply turn to the very core of Christian belief. That would be the story of the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be demonstrated to have occurred to even a reasonable degree of probability, then the musings of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and other Christian theologians are nothing more then baseless assumptions grounded in hot air which is founded on little more then grade A 100% bull droppings. Means the whole thing is abject nonsense. It is overwhelmingly apparent that an empty grave and a missing corpse, ANY empty grave and missing corpse, are VASTLY more likely to have been a result of actions taken by the living, as opposed to actions taken by the corpse. Wouldn't you agree? And so if it is possible to discern, even within the pages of the NT, that the story of the resurrection can easily be attributed to actions taken by the living, then the possibility that the corpse came back to life and flew away has no realistic standing at all. Which serves to render all the rest of your argument pointless.

I should also point out that as we get closer to Christmas my busy schedule requires more and more of my time. I will make my responses as time allows, and certainly accord you the same leeway. And yes I do celebrate and thoroughly enjoy Christmas. Not as a celebration of the birth of Jesus, but as a celebration of friends and family.

[Choir Loft]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

Since we're cutting to real chases, or the nut of the matter - do YOU really care if evidence is presented or not? I see no 'evidence' at all that any explanation, however well defined or presented, will be seriously considered.

It is not the lack of evidence that is the real issue here, it is the suppression of it.

And in that do you err and in that will you trip up yourself. For in the end the only soul that you are responsible for is your own and if you don't care to explore your own eternal possibilities you deserve the fate you get - because you asked for it.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[instantc]

Regarding the origin of the universe you can conclude either that it has always been, or that it came from nothing. It takes an extra step to come up with the idea of a god, but even if you do jump to that conclusion, you have the same choice. Either God always was, or he came into existence out of nothing.

I don't think it's quite that simple. There is a further point to be made here for the theist side that has got to do with philosophical problems associated to the idea that the universe has an infinite past. An infinite number of things seems to lead to a self-contradiction, as demonstrated by Hilbert's Hotel. If that's correct, then the universe has a finite past. Thus, the universe either came about 'spontaneously' from nothing, as Lawrence Krauss believes, or it had an external cause, which would have to somehow exist outside time (and space). That's where the God-hypothesis steps in.