Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Tue May 01 2007 - 19:03:42 EDT

On 5/1/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rich: "There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in
> being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body,
> parts or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible,"
> etc.
>
> And this makes God 'simple'? By what definition?

It's simple because God is not composite of *parts*. What's behind this
doctrine is perfection would drive simplicity and not complexity. The other
is the immaterial nature of God because a pure spirit is not complex but
simple. Ultimately, all of the attributes above describe the transcendence
of God what Barth would aptly call being "wholly other". Because it is
literally impossible for science to touch any of these categories such a
God will forever be anathema to people like Richard Dawkins. But, for those
of us who do accept them they actually provide a basis for methodological
naturalism because science -- and has been obliquely argued already
maybe theistic proofs and philosophy in general -- cannot get to God. Pim,
you rightly noted that ID posited a complex God and that is one of the
theological reasons I reject it.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 1 19:04:19 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 01 2007 - 19:04:19 EDT