The God Delusion by Dawkins

[Adrift]

Why can't the first cause be complex? Please enlighten me as to all of the philosophers that agree to this statement.

Ideas like complex and simple are human terms that were coined to describe nature. To say that the first cause cannot be complex is to make the assumption that what we view in nature must also apply to metaphysical ideas.

God may be simple. God may be complex. God isn't an animal that evolves...God just is.

As I mentioned earlier to Kberstche, some philosophers, like William Lane Craig, find a middle path (other Christian philosophers who reject divine simplicity include Alvin Plantinga, John S. Feinberg, and Thomas Morris). Craig believes in a "weaker form of divine simplicity". He goes into this a bit in his Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview,

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It's a long-agreed upon fact in the same sort of way that 1+1=2 is. Someone wanting to dispute that fact has a looooooong uphill battle, and they would need to grapple with all the arguments concerning this that have ever been raised. So when someone disputes it I just want to face-palm rather than try and argue with them, and it's not a subject I'm interested in having any sort of extended argument on, because I don't take the opposition view seriously. The fact that 'everyone has always believed it' might well not be a good reason to believe it, but the fact that everyone has always believed it for a large variety of really good reasons is.

So, how is this different from geocentrism or the composition of the continuum or Euclid's Parallel Postulate or absolute space and time? Each of these notions was defended in a similar manner when initially challenged, yet each has been shown incorrect, leaving those who Appealed to earlier Authorities eating crow.

If something is A and it could have been B, then it is a reasonable question to ask "why is it A and not B?"

This presumes that it COULD have been B. If something exists necessarily in many parts, but those several parts are similarly necessary and have necessary arrangement, then your arguments for the simplicity of the First Cause are satisfied despite the many parts of the entity in question. So even a thing which might commonly be thought of as "complex" could be instead considered "simple" on the definition which you give. If you want to demonstrate that a thing with many parts is not simple, the onus is on you to show that this thing's psrts are not necessary and necessarily arranged. If you want to say that a thing is complex solely for having many parts, then this would be an equivocation fallacy, as it's a totally different definition of complexity.

[shunyadragon]

This isn't particularly surprising given that Starlight is convinced that the God Delusion is an exceptional piece of nonfiction.

It is neither fiction nor non-fiction, and Dawkins nor starlight make any such claim. It is a philosophical work based on Dawkins belief in atheism.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It is neither fiction nor non-fiction, and Dawkins nor starlight make any such claim. It is a philosophical work based on Dawkins belief in atheism.

...philosophy is non-fiction.

[element771]

It is neither fiction nor non-fiction, and Dawkins nor starlight make any such claim. It is a philosophical work based on Dawkins belief in atheism.

Are you serious?

[Adrift]

Are you serious?

I think he's just aching for a little attention. He's been popping up in a number of threads recently saying goofy things.

[rogue06]

It is neither fiction nor non-fiction, and Dawkins nor starlight make any such claim. It is a philosophical work based on Dawkins belief in atheism.

How many philosophical works are you aware of that are fiction? Dawkins' God Delusion is most definitely non-fiction.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

How many philosophical works are you aware of that are fiction? Dawkins' God Delusion is most definitely non-fiction.

Plenty. They're usually allegorical narratives, but I would say that certain dialogs can also be considered fiction-- Don Knuth's Surreal Numbers, for example.

However, I obviously agree that The God Delusion is non-fiction. As does pretty much every library and bookseller in the world.

[element771]

I think he's just aching for a little attention. He's been popping up in a number of threads recently saying goofy things.

In other words, he is just trolling as usual.

[shunyadragon]

...philosophy is non-fiction.

I disagree.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I disagree.

Perhaps you can point me to the section of my library which contains literature that is neither fiction nor non-fiction. At the same time, would you be so good as to tell me where to find the facts which are neither true nor untrue, the Natural numbers which are neither even nor odd, and the states which are neither New Jersey nor not New Jersey.

[Starlight]

Is this your response!?! Really?!?

Sorry but this is now like the 3rd to 5th discussion on pretty much this exact topic (God's alleged simplicity and necessary being) in the last week, and I wasn't overly interested in discussing that particular topic the first time round. Robrecht discussed the topic with me starting here until it got to the point where he was claiming that the theological definition of God being 'simple' actually agreed with me that God couldn't be a first cause (not a true claim about the historical theological meaning of the term 'simple', but it's nice to be agreed with), and I got too bored of the discussion to reply to that. And since then Guac, B.P., Adrift, and yourself have all tried to make me discuss it further and I was sick of the topic the first time round, so I'm severely lacking motivation to even read posts about it now.

I don't find the topic a very interesting one because it has been discussed to absolute death by philosophers and theologians and apologists over the centuries, but there's not actually that much to be usefully said about it I don't think so most of it is redundant. It boils down to whatever the first cause was, it must have been something that could never have been otherwise. Therefore it must be something fundamental and profoundly simple, lacking any arbitrary complexity or arbitrarily linked components. Everything we know about intelligence from A.I. research, and from observing intelligent beings in the world, and from armchair philosophers thinking about what it means to be 'intelligent', tells us it is an incredibly complex arrangement of arbitrarily linked components where thousands of concepts are dynamically connected... exactly the kind of thing that absolutely isn't eligible for a 'necessary first cause', and exactly the kind of complex and arbitrary construct that needs an explanation as to its origins. Dawkins is therefore absolutely right to point this out in his book IMO.

The response to this by theists seems to generally be imaginative thinking and special pleading along the lines of "well I don't know much about the concept of 'intelligence' because I've never studied A.I. or anything like that, but in my mind I can imagine that there might be some sort of intelligent being that is simple and a necessary being, because 'intelligent' is just a single word so it doesn't sound complex so there might be able to be a non-material simple intelligence right?" Which seems to me to be like saying "well I've never studied math, but I can imagine that 1+1=46, I mean that seems possible right?" I found such claims frustrating to deal with the first time around, and there's not much that interests me to be said in response, and we're now up to the fourth or so discussion of this in the last week, so I'm just bowing out. I think Dawkins is obviously right on the point, I think anyone with a background in A.I. and philosophy can see he's obviously right, and there's not much more that's worth saying. I'll happily discuss anything else in Dawkins' book, just please not this same boring topic over and over and over and over.

[robrecht]

Sorry but this is now like the 3rd to 5th discussion on pretty much this exact topic (God's alleged simplicity and necessary being) in the last week, and I wasn't overly interested in discussing that particular topic the first time round. Robrecht discussed the topic with me starting here until it got to the point where he was claiming that the theological definition of God being 'simple' actually agreed with me that God couldn't be a first cause (not a true claim about the historical theological meaning of the term 'simple', but it's nice to be agreed with), and I got too bored of the discussion to reply to that. ...

Remind me, where did I say God could not be a first cause?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

And since then Guac, B.P., Adrift, and yourself have all tried to make me discuss it further and I was sick of the topic the first time round, so I'm severely lacking motivation to even read posts about it now.

You needn't defend the position if you do not want to defend the position. However, if you want us to be convinced of the position, you'll need to defend it. That seems rather equitable, I think.

[element771]

Sorry but this is now like the 3rd to 5th discussion on pretty much this exact topic (God's alleged simplicity and necessary being) in the last week, and I wasn't overly interested in discussing that particular topic the first time round. Robrecht discussed the topic with me starting here until it got to the point where he was claiming that the theological definition of God being 'simple' actually agreed with me that God couldn't be a first cause (not a true claim about the historical theological meaning of the term 'simple', but it's nice to be agreed with), and I got too bored of the discussion to reply to that. And since then Guac, B.P., Adrift, and yourself have all tried to make me discuss it further and I was sick of the topic the first time round, so I'm severely lacking motivation to even read posts about it now.

I am not making you discuss this. It doesn't matter if God is simple or complex.

I don't find the topic a very interesting one because it has been discussed to absolute death by philosophers and theologians and apologists over the centuries, but there's not actually that much to be usefully said about it I don't think so most of it is redundant. It boils down to whatever the first cause was, it must have been something that could never have been otherwise. Therefore it must be something fundamental and profoundly simple, lacking any arbitrary complexity or arbitrarily linked components. Everything we know about intelligence from A.I. research, and from observing intelligent beings in the world, and from armchair philosophers thinking about what it means to be 'intelligent', tells us it is an incredibly complex arrangement of arbitrarily linked components where thousands of concepts are dynamically connected... exactly the kind of thing that absolutely isn't eligible for a 'necessary first cause', and exactly the kind of complex and arbitrary construct that needs an explanation as to its origins. Dawkins is therefore absolutely right to point this out in his book IMO.

You are doing it as well. You are going by what is observed now and "everything we know". My point is that this has no relevance when discussing the concept of God.

To me this is you being lazy. I could just as easy say that philosophers, theologians, and apologists have all made good arguments for God's existence...he must exist.

I am not appealing to authority. To paraphrase, you said that the God Delusion offered the most persuasive arguments for the absence of God. I could not disagree more and I am trying to understand why you feel that way. I can think of a lot better examples of atheistic philosophy that this could be said about. Even atheist philosophers have shredded the arguments made in the God Delusion.

I often say this to my Sunday school class. Just because an argument is made by a Christian, does not mean it is a good argument. In fact, bad Christian arguments make it even more difficult to wade through the crap (e.g. see peanut butter being the atheists worst nightmare on youtube). Supporting these arguments just because they are atheistic, is not a good look.

The response to this by theists seems to generally be imaginative thinking and special pleading along the lines of "well I don't know much about the concept of 'intelligence' because I've never studied A.I. or anything like that, but in my mind I can imagine that there might be some sort of intelligent being that is simple and a necessary being, because 'intelligent' is just a single word so it doesn't sound complex so there might be able to be a non-material simple intelligence right?" Which seems to me to be like saying "well I've never studied math, but I can imagine that 1+1=46, I mean that seems possible right?" I found such claims frustrating to deal with the first time around, and there's not much that interests me to be said in response, and we're now up to the fourth or so discussion of this in the last week, so I'm just bowing out. I think Dawkins is obviously right on the point, I think anyone with a background in A.I. and philosophy can see he's obviously right, and there's not much more that's worth saying. I'll happily discuss anything else in Dawkins' book, just please not this same boring topic over and over and over and over.

Again, our concept of intelligence has nothing to do with the characteristics of a creator.

You seem to be missing the point I am trying to make. It is not that God is or is not simple, it is the idea that we have to frame God's characteristics in terms of "everything we know" or what is observable to us. God, by definition, is transcendent and therefore could very well be beyond anything that we can comprehend.

From what I can see, this is a new topic that you haven't touched on.