ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

God is not complex

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1God is not complex Empty God is not complex Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:29 am

Otangelo


Admin

God is not complex

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1332-god-is-not-complex

God is a simple, unchanging essence or substance without a body, but a spirit without complex parts.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/rebutting-an-atheist-argument-against-theism

Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet—look at those tractors.” A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!” No doubt we’d tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two.

The point is that the leader was not trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity. He was only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it—the tractors. In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.

Alvin Plantinga's response to the "who created God?" Argument used by Dawkins:

"Design doesn’t explain organized complexity (says Dawkins); it presupposes it, because the designer would have to be as complex as what it creates (designs). Perhaps, therefore, Dawkins means to argue along the following lines: there are really just two explanations of life: unguided Darwinism and an explanation, guided Darwinism, perhaps, that involves design. But the latter is really no explanation at all. Therefore the only candidate is the former.

Here there are two problems. First, this argument doesn’t depend on the facts of biology; it is substantially independent of the latter. Is it likely that Dawkins would be offering an argument of that sort? If so, why would he claim that it is “the Evidence of Evolution” that “Reveals a World Without Design”?

Set that problem aside for the moment; there is another and deeper problem with this argument. Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet—look at those tractors.” A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!” No doubt we’d tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. For of course it is perfectly sensible, in that context, to explain the existence of those tractors in terms of intelligent life, even though (as we can concede for present purposes) that intelligent life would have to be at least as complex as the tractors. The point is we aren’t trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, and we aren’t trying to explain organized complexity in general; we are only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it (those tractors). And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another. Hence it is not the case, contra Dawkins, that an explanation in terms of divine design is a nonstarter. Such an explanation doesn’t constitute an ultimate explanation of organized complexity (if God is complex, nothing could constitute such an explanation); but it is none the worse for that.

A second point: Dawkins argues that “the main thing we want to explain” is “organized complexity.” He goes on to say that “the one thing that makes evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organized complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity,” and he faults theism for being unable to explain organized complexity. Now first, in biology we are attempting to describe and explain terrestrial life, not organized complexity generally. And second: mind would be an outstanding example of organized complexity, according to Dawkins. Of course it is uncontroversial that if there is such a person as God, he would be a being who thinks and knows; so suppose we take Dawkins to be complaining that theism doesn’t offer an explanation of mind. It is perfectly obvious that theists won’t be able to give an explanation of mind in general—they won’t be able to offer an explanation for the state of affairs consisting in there being at least one mind— because, naturally enough, there isn’t any explanation of the existence of God. But that is certainly not a point against theism. Explanations come to an end; for theism they come to an end in God. For any other view of the same level of generality they also come to an end. The materialist or physicalist, for example, doesn’t have an explanation for the existence of elementary particles or, more generally, contingent physical or material beings; that there are some is, from that perspective, a brute fact. It isn’t easy to say precisely what counts as begging the question; but to fault theism for failing to have an ultimate explanation of mind is as good a candidate as any.

Here is a second attempt to reconstrue Dawkins’s argument.32 In The God Delusion he argues that the existence of God is monumentally improbable—about as probable as the assembly of a flight-worthy Boeing 747 by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Now it is not monumentally improbable, he says, that life should have developed by way of unguided Darwinism. In fact the probability that the stunning complexity of life came to be in that fashion is greater than the probability that there is such a person as God. An explanation involving divine design, therefore, is less probable than the explanation in terms of unguided Darwinism; therefore we should prefer unguided Darwinism to an explanation involving design; but these two are the only viable candidates here; therefore by an inference to the best explanation, we should accept unguided Darwinism.

Clearly a host of considerations clamor for attention here. Concede, for the moment, that unguided Darwinism is more probable than an explanation involving design; does it follow that the former is to be preferred to the latter? There is more to goodness in explanation than the probability of the explanans. And how secure is this alleged inference to the best explanation, as an argument form, or, more likely, maxim? If all the explanations are highly unlikely, am I obliged, nonetheless, to pick and endorse one of them? I hear a great roar from the Notre Dame stadium; either the Irish have scored a touchdown, or an extra point, or a field goal, or a safety, or completed a long pass, or made a long run from scrimmage, or tackled the opposing runner for a loss, or intercepted a pass. Suppose these eight explanations exhaust the field, and suppose the first is slightly more probable than any of the other seven; its probability, on the evidence is .2. Am I obliged to believe that explanation, just because it is more probable than the rest, and even though its probability is much below .5? Whatever happened to agnosticism, withholding belief?..."

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

2God is not complex Empty Re: God is not complex Mon Apr 10, 2023 8:49 am

Otangelo


Admin

God is not complex, a truth profound,
A simple essence, substance found,
Not bound by body, but spirit pure,
Without complex parts, of this we're sure.

A mind divine, a non-physical state,
Not made of pieces, simple and great,
Self-conscious, rational, volitional too,
Essential qualities, forever true.

Unlike the universe, with all its mystery,
Quantities and constants, a cosmic tapestry,
God's mind is simple, startlingly so,
A single essence, an eternal glow.

Complex ideas may fill God's thought,
But the mind itself, with simplicity sought,
Unchanging, timeless, beyond our grasp,
A truth that in our hearts we clasp.

So let us see, with open eyes,
God's simplicity, a wondrous prize,
A truth that shines, for all to see,
God is not complex, but pure simplicity.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

3God is not complex Empty Re: God is not complex Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:52 am

Otangelo


Admin

write a commentary, explain the story, do an exegesis, and outline the spiritual, theological, and practical lessons of the episode:

Commentary:
The soldiers' mockery of Jesus in the Praetorium is a painful yet significant episode in the story of the crucifixion. This event illustrates the cruelty and humiliation that Jesus endured in His final hours on Earth, and also highlights the profound impact that His message had on those who heard it.

Exegesis:
The soldiers' actions towards Jesus are a culmination of the mockery and humiliation that he suffered throughout his trial and crucifixion. They stripped him, put a scarlet robe on him, twisted together a crown of thorns, and placed it on his head. They then knelt in front of him and mocked him, saying, "Hail, king of the Jews!" before spitting on him and striking him repeatedly with a staff. This display of power and cruelty was a way for the soldiers to assert their dominance over Jesus, a perceived threat to the status quo.

Spiritual Lessons:
The soldiers' treatment of Jesus is a reminder of the suffering that many people face in the world today. This episode highlights the importance of empathy and compassion towards those who are marginalized, oppressed, or mistreated. Jesus' response to his attackers - one of forgiveness and compassion - also serves as a powerful example of how we can respond to those who seek to hurt us.

Practical Lessons:
The soldiers' mockery of Jesus reminds us of the dangers of arrogance and pride. It is easy to become complacent in our positions of power and to lose sight of the humanity of others. This episode also illustrates the importance of standing up for what is right, even in the face of opposition or persecution. Ultimately, it is through acts of love and selflessness that we can create a better world for all.
“He trusts in God, let God rescue him now,” they mocked,
The rebels, too, added their insults, as Jesus' body rocked.

Yet, amidst it all, Jesus remained silent, calm, and still,
His love and compassion for all, He never lost His will.
He forgave those who crucified Him, for they knew not what they did,
He gave up His life for all of us, so our sins would be rid.

The crucifixion of Jesus, a painful and tragic scene,
But through it, He gave us hope, and our souls He did redeem.
His love for us, unconditional and pure,
Through His sacrifice, our salvation did endure.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

4God is not complex Empty Re: God is not complex Fri May 05, 2023 5:19 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum O Livro do Gênesis Dr., página 73
Mais um ponto precisa ser discutido antes de lidar com os seis dias reais da criação em relação à palavra hebraica para “dia”, que é yom. As pessoas que querem encaixar Gênesis 1 nas teorias evolucionárias e geológicas tentam afirmar que a palavra yom não precisa significar vinte e quatro horas, mas pode significar um período de tempo mais longo, até mesmo milhões de anos. Agora, é verdade que quando a palavra yom é usada isoladamente, pode significar um período de tempo mais longo (embora não exista nenhum exemplo em que signifique milhões de anos). Por exemplo, o Dia de Jeová é um período de sete anos. No entanto, sempre que a palavra é usada com um número ou numeral, sempre significa vinte e quatro horas. Ao longo de Gênesis 1, cada vez que a palavra dia é encontrada; é usado com um numeral: dia um, dia dois, etc. Isso por si só mostra que os dias de Gênesis são dias de vinte e quatro horas. No entanto, há mais: a palavra dia não é apenas seguida por um numeral, mas também pela frase tarde e manhã, e essa frase novamente a limita a vinte e quatro horas. Além disso, a lei do sábado, conforme dada a Israel na Lei de Moisés, baseia-se nos seis dias da criação e no sétimo dia de descanso. Essas leis perderiam o sentido se não fossem dias de vinte e quatro horas. Finalmente, com o quarto dia, há a menção de dias, anos, sinais e estações, mostrando que já em Gênesis 1 existe o sistema normal de tempo em operação. Esses termos também perderiam o sentido se não fossem dias normais de vinte e quatro horas. Por si só, Gênesis 1:2 não diz nada no que diz respeito a ser uma terra velha ou uma terra jovem, e a evidência para um ou outro deve ser baseada em argumentos fora deste versículo. No entanto, os seis dias da criação foram dias literais de vinte e quatro horas.

A ordem da criação: Na leitura tradicional do Gênesis, a ordem da criação é bastante específica, com plantas criadas no terceiro dia e animais e humanos criados depois. No entanto, em uma interpretação da Terra antiga, a linha do tempo da criação é muito mais longa e complexa, com diferentes espécies evoluindo ao longo de milhões de anos. Isso levanta questões sobre como reconciliar as evidências científicas com a história tradicional da criação.

O significado de "dia": Na leitura tradicional do Gênesis, cada "dia" da criação é interpretado como um período literal de 24 horas. No entanto, uma interpretação da Terra antiga pode entender os "dias" da criação como longos períodos de tempo, potencialmente milhões de anos cada. Isso levanta questões sobre o significado da palavra "dia" na Bíblia e como ela deve ser interpretada.

A natureza da morte: Na leitura tradicional do Gênesis, a morte entra no mundo como resultado do pecado de Adão e Eva. No entanto, uma interpretação da Terra antiga requer a existência de morte e extinção muito antes de os humanos aparecerem em cena. Isso levanta questões sobre a natureza da morte e do sofrimento e como isso se relaciona com o plano de Deus.

A extensão do dilúvio: Na leitura tradicional do Gênesis, o dilúvio descrito na história da Arca de Noé é entendido como um evento mundial. No entanto, uma interpretação da Terra antiga pode ver o dilúvio como um evento mais localizado. Isso levanta questões sobre a extensão e a gravidade do dilúvio e seu significado na narrativa geral da Bíblia.

A importância Teológica de reconhecer Adão e Eva como pessoas históricas.

Se você negar um Adão real e uma Eva real, muitas das doutrinas da Bíblia (incluindo o evangelho) seriam incoerentes. Em muitas ocasiões, os autores do Novo Testamento conectam um Adão e Eva históricos à doutrina fundamental e não faz sentido se Adão e Eva fossem mitológicos.
Considere as seguintes passagens que se referem a um Adão e Eva históricos.

Jesus afirma a criação especial de Adão e Eva no início ( Marcos 10:6 ).

Lucas conecta a linhagem humana de Jesus a Adão ( Lucas 3:38 ).

Jesus vincula a doutrina do casamento a Adão e Eva ( Mateus 19:4–6 ).

Paulo conecta a doutrina da igreja a Adão e Eva ( Efésios 5:30–32 ).

Paulo defende a ordem familiar por causa de Adão e Eva ( 1 Coríntios 11:8–12 ).

Paulo atribui a origem do pecado no mundo a Eva ( 1 Timóteo 2:13–14 ).

Paulo também conecta a morte pelo pecado a Adão ( Romanos 5:12–14 ).

Ao conectar-se à sua existência e atividades reais, o Novo Testamento afirma de forma esmagadora a historicidade de Adão e Eva.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum