RE: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From: Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue May 01 2007 - 19:31:03 EDT

How would you know enough about "pure spirit" to say it's simple, not
complex, in the scientific definitions of complex? Can spirit be measured
or observed in the way that materially "complex" things can be measured? If
the "things of the spirit knoweth no man", then it sounds like it could be
pretty complex in the natural sense of the word. But we are not talking
about natural things. Sounds like a fallacy of definition to me. And the
fact that God doesn't have parts was intended a theological argument against
anthropomorphism of God (he doesn't have bodily, material parts, as the
pagan gods), as I understand it, not relating necessarily at all to
definitions of complexity, whatever those might be. It is very possible
that God is simple, but if so I dare say He's also complex, in the same
unfathomable way that He's three and one, or that Christ is human and
divine. I think it would be pretty shaky ground to base arguments on
unknown properties of God, as if we really understood them.
 
 
Jon Tandy
 <http://www.arcom.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Rich Blinne
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:04 PM

 
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.

 

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 19:31:17 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 01 2007 - 19:31:17 EDT