Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From: Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Date: Sun May 06 2007 - 19:41:01 EDT

As far as I am concerned this discussion has nothing to do with ID, it has
to do with Dawkins arguments against theism, and his hostility towards all
religion which you refuse to acknowledge, your sole argument seems to be
that you are the only one that understands Dawkins.

As I have said before, the complexity/simplicity of God is an ancient
discussion, and again, I suggest you spend more time reading the great
writers in the Christian tradition, and less of Dawkins et al. They have
apparently brainwashed you.
----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
To: "Jack" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Cc: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>; "Iain Strachan"
<igd.strachan@gmail.com>; "David Campbell" <pleuronaia@gmail.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

> As I pointed out one may of course define God to be simple but that
> does not solve the problem raised by ID that complexity requires a
> more complex entity.
> Calling God simple is just a simplistic way of defining away the
> problem of explanation.
> How is the complexity/simplificity of God determined? And how does it
> rely on materialism?
>
>
>
> On 5/1/07, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I agree with you. But the point is that Dawkins argues that God is
>> highly
>> improbable because he must be complex. But as Plantiga points out, God
>> only must be complex if materialism is a given.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rich Blinne
>> To: drsyme@cablespeed.com
>> Cc: PvM ; Iain Strachan ; David Campbell ; asa@calvin.edu
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/1/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>> > This is what Plantiga has to say about Dawkins
>> > improbablity argument:
>> >
>> >
>> > "...suppose we concede, at least for purposes of argument,
>> > that God is complex. ..
>>
>> I'm not willing to concede that. The Athenasian Creed has God as simple
>> and
>> not complex, viz. without parts. This is not just a Catholic or Orthodox
>> thing. Many of the Protestant creeds pick up on this same concept. For
>> example from the Westminster Confession:
>>
>> "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.
>>
>> For a more detailed discussion on divine simplicity and how Plantinga
>> interacts with that see here:
>>
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
>>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 6 19:41:48 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 06 2007 - 19:41:49 EDT