Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Tue May 01 2007 - 22:40:10 EDT

Let me point out a little different approach. The Hebreo-Christian view
of God requires that he be the creator of time and matter. This means
that he is outside of the time of creation, just as, being spirit, he is
not a material entity. There are some that think that there may be a
special kind of time in which God exists. This notion requires that there
be change of some sort, which gives a deity with some sort of parts that
can be "put together" or "develop" differently somehow. It also makes
relevant the question, "What was God doing before he created the
universe?" But if God is eternal, outside of all possible concepts of
time, then he is without change and necessarily simple, a totally unified
entity. I do not recall that matters are spelled out this way in any of
the ancient creeds or Reformed confessions. But I contend that one cannot
be orthodox without subscribing to what I claim.

There are also angels which I think have to be classed as pure spirits.
But they are created beings and time-bound. I am convinced that their
eternity, like ours, is endless time. I know that there is a view that
the redeemed will become timeless, but I can think of no way in which the
creature can come to have the unique qualities of deity.
Dave

On Tue, 1 May 2007 18:31:03 -0500 "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net>
writes:
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
-----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 22:43:27 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 01 2007 - 22:43:27 EDT