Are most Christians Idolaters?

[AquinasForGod]

Question for debate: Is anything less than Divine Simplicity a form of idolatry?

David Bentley Hart words it like this - Why Denial of Divine Simplicity Implies Atheism.

You might be like, WHAT? There is a good reason for this question, though. Philosophers and theologians like David Bently Hart have pointed out that many protestant Christians actually believe in an idea of god that is akin to idolatry.

I will try to explain the problem as simply as possible. If you think God is a person among the genus of persons but without our limitations, then you in fact think of God as some composited being, which would not be much different than Zues if Zues were the sole occupant of Olympus and had no beginning.

Another problem with God having any sort of parts, such as some attribute of justice which is a different attribute of mercy is that would make God a composited being, which means there must be something responsible for that him being composite in the way he is. See the argument for God from composites. This being would thus not be God for it is dependent upon something else for how it exists the way it does.

This is where divine simplicity comes in. It states God is not a composited being. God is most simple with no parts, no attributes, no properties, etc as having such would make him a composited being. This is the absolute oneness of God. Also, in principle there can only be one divinely simple being. It is not even possible for there to be more than one of them. I can show the argument if need be.

But this is not the same for god ideas that are not divinely simple. In principle, there can exist others. So at best you would have to say something like your god exist and although there could in principle exist others, he happens to be the only one. So it is not necessary there be only one.

But it is necessary there is only one divinely simple God, and so to worship any other God is akin to idolatry.

David Bently Hart has much to say on this, but here is one thing he says in his book The Experience of God.

The precise sense in which God is not a being, or indeed the sense in which he could even be said not to “exist,” is as some discrete object, essentially distinct from all others, “standing forth” (which is what “exist” means, etymologically speaking) from being as such. A being of that kind—one to which the indefinite article properly attaches—possesses a certain determinate number of attributes, a certain quantity of potentialities, a certain degree of actuality, and so on, and is at once both intrinsically composite and extrinsically enumerable: that is, every particular being is made up of a collection of parts and is also a discrete item within the sum total of existing things. All of this is precisely what classical metaphysical theism says God is not. He is instead the infinite to which nothing can add and from nothing can subtract, and he himself is not some object in addition to other objects. He is the source and fullness of all being, the actuality in which all finite things live, move, and have their being, or in which all things hold together; and so he is also the reality that is present in all things as the very act of their existence. God, in short, is not a being but is at once “beyond being” (in the sense that he transcends the totality of existing things) and also absolute “Being itself” (in the sense that he is the source and ground of all things. As Sufi tradition says, “God is al-Haqq, Reality as such, underlying everything. All finite things are limited expressions, graciously imparted, of that actuality that he possesses in infinite abundance. (pp. 108-109)

Hart says to reject divine simplicity is to reject God because a composited being cannot be God. And so he says

“To be the first cause of the whole universal chain of per se causality, God must be wholly unconditioned in every sense. He cannot be composed of and so dependent upon severable constituents, physical or metaphysical, as then he would himself be conditional” (p. 134).


But if one is unable to fathom this, as children certainly would not, then their faith will be enough, which atheists lack altogether, but to understand and reject divine simplicity is probably atheism.

[1213]

...
I will try to explain the problem as simply as possible. If you think God is a person among the genus of persons but without our limitations, then you in fact think of God as some composited being, which would not be much different than Zues if Zues were the sole occupant of Olympus and had no beginning.
...
This is where divine simplicity comes in. It states God is not a composited being. God is most simple with no parts, no attributes, no properties, etc as having such would make him a composited being. This is the absolute oneness of God. Also, in principle there can only be one divinely simple being. It is not even possible for there to be more than one of them. I can show the argument if need be. ...

I think that whole theory looks silly. Bible God has attributes. If something has no attributes, it is nothing, you would not have even a name for it, because name is also an attribute.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

You should look deeper into it. God has a nature, whose essence is his existence, so God only has things like mercy, justice, mind, etc by analogy.

It is clear God doesn't have a mind in the same sense we do because God is eternal. God's mind cannot be like ours. Nothing of God can be like ours. So by analogy God has something like justice and mercy which are the same as power and being, so God's justice would flow from his justice from his power from his being all being one nature.

When God acts, it is from eternity, unless you have a false god like Zues. This means that God's act is one eternal act, so when God does something similar to show mercy and act justly, it is from that one eternal act, so they must be understood simultaneously.

When tensed beings that live in time like humans express mercy, it is different than if they express justice. This cannot be so with a timeless being.

[DB]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

All entities, objects, beings, and things, by necessity, have attributes. We know that a dog is a dog, because it has inherent attributes that differentiate from a cat, a tree, or the wind.
God gave us His law, for example, therefore He has the attribute of providence, rectitude and justice. God cannot sin, therefore He has the attribute of impeccability - whereas man can sin. God is transcendent and alone, therefore He is sovereign. We can go on....
In other words, only nothing is devoid of attributes - as long as God Has spoken in a deliberate and meaningful fashion, He has, whether intentionally or not, divulged something intrinsic and indelible about His character.
He gave us His word, therefore not anything goes because He is attribute-less, but rather, there is a fine line and narrow path as to what please Him ...according to His attributes. Otherwise , what would be the rules and parameters to receive His approbation and procure our salvation?

Attributes do not limit or degrade God - we were created in His image, and due to that, we know that there are consequences to certain behaviours - we have to define character obligations and desist those that are not compatible with God's will i.e. character and attributes.

[Diogenes]

The precise sense in which God is not a being, or indeed the sense in which he could even be said not to “exist...."

This is, I think, what Paul Tillich affirms when he declares "God is not a being. He is the very ground of being." Tillich goes on to say it is "atheistic" to call God a being. The problem then becomes, "How does one relate to such a God?" Tillich struggles mightily in his 3 volume "Systematic Theology" to reason his way to a God who is somehow personal, yet not a being... a god who does not blend into nothingness as part of the fabric of the universe.
A neat trick if you can pull it off. I don't believe he does.

Contra to your claim about atheists, I would say the person who denies God is a being, that God is not a Zeus like god, is much closer to understanding God than the whole host of evangelicals who indeed see God as a being.

Curiously, and as you explicitly say, this line of reasoning proves "God" does not exist."

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #5]

The idea of a being - someone sitting on a throne somewhere, expectant of worship is a strange and very human thing.

I think, that thinking a possible creator of this universe as a mind is a better way to go about it, as a mind doesn't really need such trivial costume and still can be communicated with - potentially.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #5]

Yes, classical theism seems to leave us with a rather impersonal God, much like Aristotle believed, and he was a classical theist.

How would a transcendent God ever be personal or relatable to us?

One way is incarnation. So God is act and so one eternal act, thus if God incarnated he did so as that eternal act. By uniting with the person of Christ, we have a divine person we can relate to. We can understand his suffering and raising and being eternal king, eternal representation of God.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #5]

Yes, classical theism seems to leave us with a rather impersonal God, much like Aristotle believed, and he was a classical theist.

How would a transcendent God ever be personal or relatable to us?

One way is incarnation. So God is act and so one eternal act, thus if God incarnated he did so as that eternal act. By uniting with the person of Christ, we have a divine person we can relate to. We can understand his suffering and raising and being eternal king, eternal representation of God.

Yes, an incarnation would solve the problem, yet God becoming man is the most improbable scenario of all. Solving the problem by God becoming man means God was not impersonal in the first place. The only conclusion I come to is, there is no 'God' we can either relate to or describe.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #5]

Yes, classical theism seems to leave us with a rather impersonal God, much like Aristotle believed, and he was a classical theist.

How would a transcendent God ever be personal or relatable to us?

One way is incarnation. So God is act and so one eternal act, thus if God incarnated he did so as that eternal act. By uniting with the person of Christ, we have a divine person we can relate to. We can understand his suffering and raising and being eternal king, eternal representation of God.

Yes, an incarnation would solve the problem, yet God becoming man is the most improbable scenario of all. Solving the problem by God becoming man means God was not impersonal in the first place. The only conclusion I come to is, there is no 'God' we can either relate to or describe.

God would still be transcendent and not relatable to us in his divinity. It is only in his assumed human nature that we find God relatable. The reason why is because God cannot change. God did not transform into a human. He assumed a human nature, by uniting with the person of Christ, but that unity did not cause any change in God or change in the nature of man, which is why we say Jesus the person has two natures.

[JehovahsWitness]

Question for debate: Is anything less than Divine Simplicity a form of idolatry? ... If you think God is a person ...

Isn't the trinity beliefe in 3 persons in one god? ... if so each one of the three would be a person : So Cathholics believe God is a person.

JW