Rationality & Christianity: Mutually Exclusive?

[Montmorency]

A simple thing has few qualities, a complex thing has many qualities. Imagine it like a machine. You can have a see-saw and a pully winch. Both can be used to raise a load from one level to another, but one has few qualities (moving parts) and the other has many. Therefore, one is simple and the other complex.

Are qualities and components the same thing? One could invent an infinite number of qualities to ascribe to any given "thing", or obviate any quality they like by naming it derivative or tangential.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are qualities and components the same thing? One could invent an infinite number of qualities to ascribe to any given "thing", or obviate any quality they like by naming it derivative or tangential.

Well that's the rub, isn't it?

I'll say this - the argument (enumerated by Richard Dawkins and since taken up generally) is that God is complex, however there is no evidence of this - such evidence as their is suggests God is simple with a simple (but infinitely powerful) nature.

In any case, it doesn't actually matter because (as I said) the universe is infinitely complex and therefore its creation is infinitely unlikely. Being as it's already infinitely unlikely it can't be less likely and therefore you can't use the argument that "emergence" is more simple than a "complex God". Ockham's Razor is only applicable when one argument is less complex than the other - but in this case both arguments are infinitely complex.

The "Gomplex God" argument is an attempt by Dawkins specifically to control the bounds of the debate and as an Oxford Don he's good at using his gravitas to persuade other people that he should be allowed to control the bounds of the debate - he shouldn't be.

I'm not trying to argue for God, I'm simply pointing out that Idaho and Pape have made claims that don't stand up to inspection philosophically or metaphysically.

I see belief in God as a choice, or perhaps an inclination, and I think that it's equally possible to support both arguments using logic. I'm a logical person, when I first went to university I met a guy at Officer Training Corps selection who was a Christian, over dinner he told me about his uncle. His uncle was a Bishop, and one day he woke up and realised he just didn't buy it any more. Rather than throw in the towel he dove into philosophy and theology and eventually proved to himself that belief in God was as rational as not believing. This gentleman then recovered his faith once he was satisfied it was rational. At the time I believed, as Idaho does, that belief in God was irrational and therefore rejected Him despite my natural inclinations.

I spent a couple of years in study (whilst taking an English degree) and eventually I too was satisfied that belief in God is rational. It all depends on your metaphysics. Your metaphysics can support belief in God or not but either way they're a set of unprovable assumptions and therefore they're essentially arbitrary articles of faith.

Belief in God is an obviously arbitrary metaphysical belief, but there are others. Belief in a logical universe and linear time are two other essentially arbitrary beliefs. Like belief in God these convictions stem from our experience of the universe, and the point about that is that it is fundamentally limited by our perceptions and therefore flawed.

The only thing you can know for certain is that you know nothing for certain.

[Gilrandir]

A simple thing has few qualities, a complex thing has many qualities. Imagine it like a machine.

I'm afraid the difference between "few" and "many" is as vague as between "simple" and complex". What is the number which turns "few" into "many"? Like 5 - is it still few or is it already many?

If you study metaphysics you'll see that all sciences regress to a point where we rely on unprovable laws, and there is no pure knowledge.

So it is a pure supposition that 2+2=4? I'd rather say that being itself very opaque/oblique metaphisycs/philosophy wants other sciences to look like that. Just not to feel that singled out.

Personally, I think the study of philosophy is important because it promotes self-awareness, particularly of our own infallibility.

Beyond that, I find philosophical intercourse enjoyable.

It seems like one must study philosophy not not discover something about the world, but to excel and to have fun. Are we talking of MTW yet, or is it still that pseudoscience?

Rather than throw in the towel he dove into philosophy and theology and eventually proved to himself that belief in God was as rational as not believing.

Don't take it as an offence or nitpicking - it is just professional interest. Is "dove" past tense of "dive"? And if it is, has this verb become an irregular one in modern English?

[Montmorency]

Both "dove" and "dived" are in use, though by most accounts "dived" is more common. "Dove" has mostly come up in modern English by analogy to the pattern seen in "strive - strove" and "drive - drove".

I'd rather say that being itself very opaque/oblique metaphisycs/philosophy wants other sciences to look like that. Just not to feel that singled out.

You're conflating the academy and the questions.