RE: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Tue May 01 2007 - 19:42:37 EDT

God being complex or simple? Having parts? I do not want to throw cold water on this discussion, but how can the creature ever have any notion whatsoever of the Creator? Not only the air we breathe and the food we eat; God created even the spacetime we live in. How can you ever conceive of someone like that?




From: on behalf of Rich Blinne
Sent: Tue 5/1/2007 7:03 PM
To: PvM
Cc: Iain Strachan; David Campbell;
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

On 5/1/07, PvM <> 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,"
        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 with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 1 19:43:46 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 01 2007 - 19:43:46 EDT