Judy, if the nature of God of classical theism is absolutely simple, then how can one speak about the nature of God, which implies 2 parts, God and His nature?
Which actually is how Maharishi talks about it: Purusha and Prakriti, Shiva and Shakti, silence and dynamism, etc. If the quote of classical theism refers to the impersonal God, then I agree with it. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:35 AM, "authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Just for da record, the nature of the God of classical theism is said to be absolutely simple: "The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the 'attributes' of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. [also intelligence] are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity No, I don't understand what that means either! It's either a step by step process or there has to be something involved in design and planning and that kind of negates the idea of creation because if it needs intelligence to do it then the intelligence must have come first. Intelligence by it's nature is complex. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Richard, You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get? What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self creating. It didn't "create" itself in any sort of "this bit goes here" sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation because they would have to be around before. You have to start with simplicity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: >>>>>Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss, don't believe in including consciousness in their cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be illogical and wrong. >>>>> > >>>>Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that there should be a human consciousness. Go figure. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James Randi feels confident there is no paranormal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know quite a lot about consciousness already. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg..... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-dollar prize >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-... >>>>>I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as "When I see a box, I cannot help but enter"—is ... >>>>> >>>>>View on whyevolutionistrue.wor... Preview by Yahoo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>
