bahman wrote: Yes. Complicated things either move toward more complexity or simplicity depending on the mode of things.
Or perhaps some complicted things do not move towards more complexity or simplicity. CAn you demonstrate that this must be the case.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:2)
This, being subjected to time, is impossible though
Why can't God evolve? Change over time, that is.
Evolve toward what? Knowing more? That is the attribute of creature.
Sure, knowing more. The Abrahamic religions have God as the perfect unevolving something. Perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps God evolves.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:3) God cannot be simple (God is love, God is Justice, etc.)
Why can't God be simple?
Because God is love and justice. Basically these are definitions of God which are not equal because love and justice are different.
You mean because humans use inexact terms in language there could not possibly be a God where it would be useful to use those terms?
Are you saying, for example, you would never refer to another person as both just and loving because they cannot be both all the time? Are you saying something does not exist because our words are not perfect?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Are you saying that because people say God is different things, God can't be simple?
Yes.
So if people start saying contradictory things about you will that make you no longer having existed?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Could't some of the definitions be wrong?
God at least is love and justice. He is also existence. There are other definitions too. A God who is love cannot be hate for example so we have to decide which one God is, good God or Evil God? Here as an example we are working with good God.
It seems to me all you are demonstrating is some the problems of describing things. Still, even the inexact descriptions of things can be useful, and even convey core truths.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Or couldn't being loving lead to just actions and attitudes. Is there a particular God you are saying is impossible`? Some versions of God are not just.
There is problem if there are at least two definitions.
That's true for a lot of things we know exist.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:First, God is the following things: God is Love, God is Justice, etc. Love however is different from Justice therefore God cannot be simple. This justifies premise (3). This can be only resolved if God is subjected to time, sometimes Love, sometimes Justice, etc. So premise (1) is justified.
Well, first there's the possibility that Loving and being just are facets of the same simple attitude.
Then please show that love and justice are facets of the same simple attitude.
If you are loving you want to treat those you love justly.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Second, God cannot be subjected to time since God has to either wait eternity to create the universe or He comes into existence at a given point.
Why would God have to wait?
Because by eternity we mean that God has existed in infinite past. Creation apparently is not eternal, it has a age. Therefore God has to wait eternity to create.[/quote]We don't know if creation is eternal or not. It could be eternal forward in time. What if God is not bound by time? What if we are trying to describe things above our pay grade. Like a dog licking the reviever of a phone upon hearing his owners voice through it. He's right, it is his owner speaking. But he is not completely right.
It seems to me many of the issues you raise have the same problems when describing things we know are real. Like the personality of someone we love. Perception. The external world. Time. We try to explain these things and we get into imperfections and problems. Language and perception are problematic. I will never adequately be able to put my wife into words. Yet, she exists. And in many ways I do know her and my descriptions are helpful. Perhaps her mother knows her also, b ut her descriptions are not useful. They confuse others when those people meet my wife or do not help them understand her reactions and motives. Her mother has poorer descritpions, but mine are not perfect, they are just useful and in some core way correct. Even if one went through them carefully one would find contradictions and confusions.
It seems to me your critique works well as a general indictment of language, but it is a poor approach to disproving God or even discproving that some people have useful ways of describing, thinking about and relating to God.
And also there is a heavy use of the Abrahamic God.