Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Hitchens' Hubris Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_hubris#2752 Post contents: <i>would also direct everyone to the article from Christianity Today linked to above, which deals with the philosophical confusion of Dawkins et al.</i> Plantinga's arguments are, I'm afraid, risible. He argues: 'Dawkins says God is complex [using the word in a scientific sense], but classic theology says He's not complex [using the word in a non-scientific sense]. One in the eye for Dawkins!' Plantinga commits the gross error of failing to distinguish between two different senses of the word 'complex'. Then: 'Dawkins says complex entities have parts, but God is immaterial, therefore has no parts, therefore is not complex.' Risible again: it's proof by definition. If by 'part' one means 'a distinguishable portion of a material entity', then of course God has no parts. But why must it be an material entity? To take a simple example: the digits of pi are 'parts' of pi and if nothing existed but God, he would still know all the digits of pi. Therefore parts exist within God and he is indeed 'complex'. Infinitely so, in fact. Sent at: 2008 07 06