Is Divine Simplicity Compatible with Trinitarianism? | Dr. Rob Koons & Dr. Ryan Mullins

Is divine simplicity compatible with there being one God in three persons? Buckle up for a very illuminating exchange.
Rob's relational qua-object paper:
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fb2c...
Ryan's three papers on Trinitarianism:
(1) www.academia.edu/31860370/Has...
(2) ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/th...
(3) www.academia.edu/1971708/Divi...
Rob's website: robkoons.net/
Ryan's website: www.rtmullins.com/
My website: majestyofreason.wordpress.com/
My book: www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

[@matthewantero5960]

This channel is criminally underexposed

[@juanfranciscotejada9460]

Joe, I have to thank you for being the person you are. Nowadays, many atheists/agnostics are vitriolic, disrespectful, and do not further the philosophical cause. You are not like that. You are a true philosopher, your work makes me exited to study more. Keep it up!

[@MajestyofReason]

MUCH LOVE

[@dogsdomain8458]

"you're one of the good ones"

[@Oskar1000]

I see a lot of bashing common atheist/agnostics on this channel. It worries me. It seems like a bunch of theists are equally unsophisticated philosophically but there is no bashing of them here. Also it seem a bit "ivory tower"-ish which I don't like as well.

[@DeadEndFrog]

@@Oskar1000 Well they need someone to hate, while claiming some moral standard. The world wouldn't be as fun without hypocracy.

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

​@@Oskar1000I also dislike those crazy fundies and argue against them, even make fun of them when needed. It's just that pendatic atheism is more common in the internet

[@Davestertl]

I'm not much of a philosopher (in fact, even "not much" is orobably giving myself too much credit), but I deeply appreciate what you're doing on the channel, Joe. You're obviously a great guy, and I hope to keep seeing what becomes of the channel and to learn from you!

[@MajestyofReason]

Much love

[@irememberyou12]

Joe, Your channel and your blog is just fire.. straight fire. thanks for all these awesome content.

[@SuperTonydd]

God is Being God is Knower God is Known

[@stephenbrown7924]

I really enjoyed this exchange. Thanks. Keep it up!

[@MajestyofReason]

❤️

[@Brunofromaraguari]

Amazing and interesting discussion. 👏

[@cjson]

This is very helpful, thank you :)

[@anglozombie2485]

YES A NEW VIDEO. Actually I feel like I agree more with Koons on this one.

[@DryApologist]

My thoughts on the worry at 1:19:38 (about the Godhead being Trinitarian and therefore the persons being Trinitarian themselves). I would say that the nature = the general set of properties, which originate with God the Father (maybe what Dr. Koons was calling 'first order' properties). So, the persons of the Trinity then partake of those general set of properties, which originate with God the Father. So, there is a distinction between the 'general set of properties' and the persons that partake of those general set of properties. So, each person of the Trinity is not a new Trinity because each person is not a new set of general properties, rather each person partakes of the one set of general properties that originate with God the Father. I think Dr. Koons seems to hold this type of conception from what I could tell. I think distinguishing that the set of general properties originate with God the Father though helps account for why the general set of properties are not then their own being or person apart from the three divine persons.

[@dimazhyvov170]

BRO! AMAZING! :)

[@MajestyofReason]

yesssss DIMAAAAAA

[@SuperTonydd]

God as grounded in Mind/ Being is the foundation for a strong doctrine of divine simplicity.

[@justinmarty127]

I get such a kick out of your vids.

[@thescoobymike]

Makes it all the more complicated when one person of the trinity is also considered fully human

[@TheBrunarr]

Oo this'll be good.

[@SuperTonydd]

God is a Mind that simultaneously Knows, is Knower and is Knowledge; that's how you solve divine simplify. The peak of the physical universe is Mind itself, mind as the image of God. Discard the physical and Mind is not incompatible with non physical nature. The outputs of mind are abstract thought. Full knowledge is unitive; love. To know is to love

[@slamrn9689]

I like your hair cut Joe. Ryan always looks to me that he is sitting behind a drum set in that corner, especially with the guitar sticking up. There is such a thing as "the Mullins sigh". Maybe now I'll pay attention to what is being said.

[@MajestyofReason]

hahaha THANK YOU!!!! BOILER UP

[@TheReluctantTheologian]

You are not the first to point out "the Mullins sigh," and you won't be the last. ;)

[@slamrn9689]

@@TheReluctantTheologian I actually love "the Mullins sigh," I think you have to take a deep breath of oxygen to power your brain cells.

[@blamtasticful]

1:17:44 Just casually mentioning some really cool and important work in game theory to then address the question lol. My favorite part for sure.

[@troysmalley7886]

The idea of the divine persons as qua-objects seems similar to counterpart perdurantism or just counterpart theory generally, eg., a self at t1 is distinct from the same self as t2, though ofcourse in this case the same person exists as distinct counterparts at different times. In the case of the Trinity, the analogue would track along the divine essence being exemplified at 3 counterparts.

[@DarwinsGreatestHits]

This will be interesting. Two heavyweights here.

[@MajestyofReason]

Yes! And Koons accompanied us too! ;) [Kidding, ofc. :) ]

[@TheBrunarr]

@@MajestyofReason Ha! Nice

[@dogsdomain8458]

look DGH is here!

[@cmptadorientem]

Mullins claims beginning at 15:35 that the fact that the relation between the Father and Son (for example) is causal is "very explicit in the creeds" but then proceeds to give no example of any creed that actually says this. He just rattles off a list of theologians who presumably agree with him (assuming Mullins has interpreted them correctly), but cites no text from any creed that says this explicitly. And his quotation from Heron subverts his point, since as Heron notes, "begotten" denotes that which has a "cause *or source*" (my emphasis) outside itself. So Mullins's claim that this is "not up for debate" is laughable. Indeed, on some senses of "cause" (including, importantly, on my view, the correct sense), the claim that the Father causes the Son is heretical and therefore the exact opposite of Mullins's claim is correct: its denial is not up for debate.

[@TheReluctantTheologian]

I think you should do three things. First, listen to that clip again. The Nicene Creed says that the Son is begotten and not made. Any attentive viewer will notice that I said, "The Nicene Creed says the Son is begotten, like you pointed out, and not made..." I am obviously discussing that portion of the Creed where it says that the Son is begotten and not made. So your claim that I cite no text from any creed is demonstrably false, and as you would say "laughable." Second, here are the notes that I am reading from: "The Nicene Creed says that the Son is begotten of the Father and not made or created. The word begotten is gennetos with two ns, whereas the word created is genetos with one n. Here is what the early church scholar Alistair Herron says about these words. According to Herron, the word begotten in the Creed means, “that which has a cause or source outside itself.” This is contrasted with created, which in the Creed means “that which has come into being.” According to the historian Stephen Holmes, the Creedal teaching is that “the Father is the personal cause of the Son,” and because of this, “they share the same nature.” " Further, as you pointed out, I cite a number of other scholars who do agree that begotten (gennetos) in the Nicene Creed means caused, generated, etc. Citing reliable sources is called scholarship. It might be good if you did some basic research on this topic to see if I am interpreting these scholars correctly. You can start with the 3 papers that I have published on this topic, and then read all of the church historians that I cite. Third, and I am only going to say this once, you need to stop being a troll. Your constant attitude towards me online is very unprofessional, and at times unChristian.

[@cmptadorientem]

@RT Mullins: Thanks for the reply. "The Nicene Creed says that the Son is begotten and not made. Any attentive viewer will notice that I said, "The Nicene Creed says the Son is begotten, like you pointed out, and not made..." I am obviously discussing that portion of the Creed where it says that the Son is begotten and not made." Yes, I heard that part very clearly. The problem is that the Nicene Creed, as you quote it, is very explicit about the Son being begotten and not made. It is clearly not very explicit (as you claim) about the relation between the Father and the Son being causal. That is your reading (and, I imagine, the reading of the theologians you cite) of the "begotten" claim, not the Creed's assertion. There's a huge difference, and you said it was "very explicit", not implicit given your reading of "begotten" (which is the most you have here). "So your claim that I cite no text from any creed..." Maybe you should read my comment again. I never claimed that you cite no text from any creed. I claim that you cite no text from any creed that actually (explicitly) says this, which is true, as I show above. "Citing reliable sources is called scholarship. It might be good if you did some basic research on this topic to see if I am interpreting these scholars correctly. You can start with the 3 papers that I have published on this topic, and then read all of the church historians that I cite." That's all well and good, but you say that it is very explicit *in the creeds* that it is a causal relation, not that it is very explicit in this or that theologian's interpretation of the creed that it is a casual relation. The point of my comment was to draw out this difference. As I'm sure you're aware, there are theologians who disagree with such a reading, and the fact is that you cite no creed that uses anything semantically close to "cause" to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. That's the limit of my claim. "Third, and I am only going to say this once, you need to stop being a troll. Your constant attitude towards me online is very unprofessional, and at times unChristian." Please, spare me. There was nothing remotely trollish or unchristian about my comment above, nor, as I recall at least, in any of my interactions with you in non-professional contexts, and saying so is pretty rich coming just after your comment above about scholarship and in the same breath as your claim that you're "only going to say this once,” neither of which I take to be necessarily trollish or unchristian, but which are both certainly at least as abrasive as anything I’ve said to you.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Christopher, your comment was combative. You shan't be spared.

[@bvidude8064]

The video is correct. Note: "Monotheos" as a term is not used in Christianity until the 1600s. The term Christians used historically was "Monarche". The Early Church Fathers (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, for example) called The Father "arche anarchos" (cause without cause). The Son (begotten) and the the Holy Spirit (proceedeth) explicitly did not share this property. This is known as "Hypostatic Origin". Where I would somewhat disagree with the video is trying to fully explain what "begetting" and "proceeding" mean in the Godhead. The Lord does not reveal what they mean for the divine persons, so we don't know. The Church Fathers state that "begetting" and "proceeding" are mysteries. All we do know is that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father, and that they come to be (not in space and time) and exist in different ways. Where we have to be careful is saying that The Son and The Spirit are caused BY WILL, which would make them separable, contingent, created (Arianism). That's heretical. Most assume that "cause" automatically implies beginning in time and space, separability, contingency, etc. This applies to the created order, but not the divine. This is a very ancient way of thinking, which can be strange to people today, who think more in a post-Renaissance, post-Enlightenment fashion (less transcendently and metaphysical and much more materialistic). There's a very well known book "Filioque History of a Doctrinal Controversy" by A. EDWARD SIECIENSKI, which documents views on the Trinitarian relationship in the church and how it changes between the East (Greek) and West (Latin) halves of the Christian world/empire.

[@pamphilus3652]

They are debating divine simplocity but neither of them believe in it. One rejects it outright but the other doesnt even know that he rejects it

[@lonelyguyofficial8335]

🤣

[@josephtnied]

I'm struggling to understand how God "being known by Himself" constitutes a distinct "awareness" or person, or how God "being known by Himself and knowing Himself" (which sounds like "God knowing that He knows Himself") does either. I feel like those "states of awareness" just reduce back down to God being alone. I'll have to think about it.

[@davidcoleman5860]

No need to think about it further because you're absolutely correct. As composite beings, we think about ourselves all the time, and we can even call that different states or categories of awareness, but that doesn't make us three persons or distinct awarenesses loving each other. And if our self-contemplation is somehow analogous to transcendent awareness, then at bottom all we're saying is that God thinks about Himself. There is nothing _trinitarian_ about that. Arians and modalists say the same thing.

[@lonelyguyofficial8335]

Exactly.

[@jffink8790]

44:18 I looked up looked up Augustine's On the trinity 5.3-5.5, and I can't find any mention of God having no properties. Where is Mullins pulling this from?

[@MajestyofReason]

Augustine, The Trinity VII.10. Cf. Katherin Rogers, “The Traditional Doctrine of Divine Simplicity,” Religious Studies 32 (1996), 166. Also, Henry Church, Miscellanea Philo-Theologica (London: I.N. for John Rothwell, 1638), 23. Bergmann and Brower 2006, 359-60. See also pp. 55-56 of "The End of the Timeless God", Mullins (Oxford: Oxford University Press) for more quotes from Augustine, Rogers, and other past thinkers. :)

[@TheReluctantTheologian]

Yeah, sorry. I was flipping through my notes really fast at that point and missed a few other Augustine citations to go with that one. It should also be accompanied by several citations from other scholars like Katherin Rogers, Michael Bermann, Jeff Brower, Steven Duby, James Dolezal, Christopher Hughes, ect. I've got a lengthy discussion of this in several papers, and in chapter 3 of "The End of the Timeless God." There I discuss various passages from Augustine's "On the Trinity" V, VI, VII and XV, as well as various passages from other historical figures.

[@SuperTonydd]

Also as thesis God as Mind (One shared Being) which is the non physical essence of our Being Thought origin Word proceeding Knowing fully(Holy Spirit knows God breadth height also known as love of God)

[@ahlal-haqq3325]

Us Sunnī Muslims don’t affirm ADS Because of the Act/Attribute being Identical to the essence. If God is Al-Khaliq then he must be Eternally Creating. Great vid Joe.

[@morphy3205]

Modal collapse fails. Did you leave discord?

[@anonymousperson1904]

Regarding the point about the aseity argument for divine simplicity, the classical theist would say that God cannot be composed of 'parts' because then He would be dependent on the parts conjoining together to make a single unified whole. So, A and B are 'parts' of subject S if A and B are distinct from each other and distinct from S, but when they come together in a united whole they constitute S. But, this is not how a Trinitarian would view the divine persons, because each divine person is identical to God Himself. So, the divine persons would not be 'parts' on this understanding. So, the non-classical theist cannot just reject the aseity argument for divine simplicity on the basis of the Trinity, because the divine persons are not 'parts' that need to be united together in order for God to exist. Thoughts?

[@MajestyofReason]

Thanks for the comment! I'm rather busy with moving back to school and working on papers, so here's my brief thought: It would ultimately depend on how we define 'part' -- unfortunately something that is often overlooked and underappreciated in discussions concerning simplicity, aseity, etc. :)

[@anonymousperson1904]

​@@MajestyofReason Thanks for the reply. I completely agree with you that we need a definition of what it means to be a 'part' in order to have any fruitful discussion on simplicity. What do you think of the definition I provided: A and B are 'parts' of subject S if A and B are distinct from each other and distinct from S, but when they come together in a united whole they constitute S.

[@dogsdomain8458]

If they are numerically identicle to god, then they would necessarily be identicle to each other. If they are not numerically identicle, then they would be parts of god, because they would be distinct from each other in virtue of some properties, and so for god to be a trinity he would need to have all three persons with all 3 sets of properties in virtue of which he can be deemed a trinitarian god. I dont see how you can say each person is identicle to god but also not identicle to each other, as that seems to giolate the law of identity.

[@anonymousperson1904]

​@@dogsdomain8458 Yeah, I agree it violates the transitivity of identity. The Father = God, the Son= God, the Spirit= God, but all of the persons are really distinct from each other. I think it's just a really really weird consequence that follows from something that is self-relational. For instance, God knows Himself. So, there is God, the knower, and God, the thing known. So, the knower is identical to God, and the thing known is identical to God, but the relation of 'being knower' is really distinct from the relation of 'being known'. And I think it applies to even us. Say, I love myself. So, I am both a lover and thing loved. But, the relation of 'being a lover' is really distinct from the relation of 'being loved'. So, I = lover and I= beloved, but being lover is really distinct from being beloved. Btw, I'm not a Christian Trinitarian myself, but I do think that these really distinct relations exist in God.

[@TheBrunarr]

@@anonymousperson1904 if you think those really distinct relations exist in God then you're a trinitarian lol. Thats just what the Trinity is

[@williammcenaney1331]

I wouldn't say that the divine persons share the divne nature, since that might suggest that God has parts.

[@anitkythera4125]

@17:55 #HolyFactCheckBatman! Dr. Ryan Mullins is just amazing. Seriously impressive...is his brain hooked up to some Christian Theology wiki?

[@yf1177]

How can a mind be simple? To be utterly simple, God would have to be utterly mindless. You can't have both intelligence and simplicity. A mindless rock is simpler than a mind. A supreme mind cannot be simpler than a rock. This should be supremely simple to understand.

[@Zombiefann]

Soooo... is the Triune God a composite being or not? Are the persons of the Trinity "parts"of the divine being? I was most ucomfortable with Rob's consistent reference to the divine being as an "it".

[@MajestyofReason]

While I *love* Rob (a LOT), I side strongly with Ryan in this discussion. So I wouldn't be able to answer your question on behalf of Rob ;)

[@ob4161]

I would say that while God is not a composite being, He is a self-referential being. On DS, God knows himself in the most perfect and intimate way; the "knower" being the father, the "himself" known being the son, and His act of self knowledge being the spirit, which "proceeds from the father and the son" (Nicene creed). It's not only compatible with DS but follows logically from it.

[@slamrn9689]

What does "not numerically identical with each other" mean - from the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD?

[@MajestyofReason]

So, essentially, 'X and Y are numerically identical' means that X and Y are exactly one and the same thing. There aren't two distinct things, but there is only one single thing, to which X and Y are exactly the same. So, 'the 45th president of the US' is identical to Trump; 'Susan' is identical to the user behind SlamRN; I am numerically identical with myself; and so on. Hopefully this helps! So, the divine persons *not* being numerically identical means they are distinct 'things'; they are not all one and the same reality/entity/thing.

[@slamrn9689]

@@MajestyofReason That was a good explanation - except I asked what does "not numerically identical with each other" mean. But, I can fathom it from your answer (perhaps you did this on purpose). Thanks so much!

[@slamrn9689]

@@MajestyofReason So it is qualitative and not quantitative.

[@MajestyofReason]

@@slamrn9689 Correct! Numerical identity is all or nothing -- full blown sameness. :)

[@dogsdomain8458]

@@slamrn9689 both. It means you are just refering to the same thing by different name (ex. Batman and bruce wayne)

[@thescoobymike]

4:50 but could God be incarnated as a bat if he wanted to? be fully God and fully bat?

[@scotthutson8683]

So.... I have no idea what "qua" means....

[@MajestyofReason]

hahaha I thought someone would bring that up

[@TheBrunarr]

I'd love it if you could get Dr. Bill Vallicella on here to talk about God and Naturalism and such. There aren't enough videos with him on KZbin

[@MajestyofReason]

Excellent suggestion!

[@TheBrunarr]

@@MajestyofReason thanks, I'm reading his book Paradigm Theory of Existence right now and its really good so far. I recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it

[@joshuaphilip7601]

@@TheBrunarr would you call it a hard book for someone not thoroughly experienced in the language of metaphysics?

[@TheBrunarr]

@@joshuaphilip7601 Yes

[@gg2008yayo]

Are you a theist if not a christian? If so what is your favorte argument/s for God? I hope you dont mind me asking

[@SpaceDin0]

Good stuff. You’d definitely would be a disciple of Jesus if he showed up in this time period.

[@SpaceDin0]

Travis Statham ?

[@w4rsh1p]

@@SpaceDin0 a joke about virgin births

[@SpaceDin0]

Travis Statham then it was a terrible joke

[@w4rsh1p]

@@SpaceDin0 actually a lot of people believe that virgin births did happen, and they're not joking. They also don't think they can be wrong despite the wide availability of the virgin birth concept in other religions.

[@SpaceDin0]

Travis Statham but still it was a crappy joke.

[@alfred9916]

👍🏻

[@SuperTonydd]

Yeah you can't hypothesise the qua of God from a creation perspective. It has to be a distinction that is eternal to his own nature

[@user-pj7sq7ce1f]

Divine simplicity is not absolute divine simplicity they are different.

[@Repentee]

What does the term accidents mean in this context? Help anyone 😆

[@Biblig]

Non essential parts. Something that could have not been there and the object would remain essentially the same.

[@Repentee]

@@Biblig thank you. so like contingent properties I'm assuming?

[@Biblig]

@@Repentee Yes.

[@Repentee]

@@Biblig sweet thanks, just started my research into the topic/debate and still trying to understand the terminology

[@Biblig]

@Christian James To understand DS you'll need to get down Substance/Accident ,Nature/Supposit, Essence/Existence. Basically the various forms of composition that the Thomist will deny of God. I recommend "Divine Simplicity A God without parts".

[@joshuabrecka6012]

You should ask Klaas Kraay to come on sometime to discuss his multiverse models of God and creation. He should be back from sabbatical in Amsterdam by now.

[@MajestyofReason]

Wonderful suggestion!

[@joshuabrecka6012]

Oh and of course, as always, this was amazing. You are so smart and articulate. It would be a treat to ever have the chance to meet or chat with you. Maybe at a conference when those are a thing again. Do you ever go to big meetings like the SCP or APA (or even better for me the CPA)?

[@joshuabrecka6012]

@@MajestyofReason like I said before I can hook you up. I know him.

[@MajestyofReason]

@@joshuabrecka6012 Thank you

[@joshuabrecka6012]

@@MajestyofReason indeed! Although you are younger right? Finishing undergrad? It's amazing how knowledgable you are. You know so much more than me and I'm in my PhD!

[@mathewsamuel1386]

So much casuistry and equivocation going on here. How many minds has this philosopher's/theologian's God? If one, then we've just got one person in 3 relations. If three, then we've got 3 Gods or Tritheism. The man's equivocation and puns make me worry how anyone could understand him without going crazy!

[@AlexADalton]

This Trinitarian theory stuff seems really messy. Can we just ditch it and call it a mystery? Seems very much like a waste of a life studying this doctrine, even given the extremely small chance that something like one of these theories around it are true. Joe, can you get a Unitarian philosopher like Dale Tuggy on here to chat with a neo-classical theist like Mullins?

[@ronaldmendonca6636]

What's more simple? A: 3 gods in one B: No god

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

In the “case” of nonbeing there wouldn’t *be* a reference class/subject that *could* even be described, much less described as “simple.” “There” wouldn’t be a “there” nor any “cases” / states of affairs. So, no, nothing isn’t simpler.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

To follow up on and clarify my last post, classical theism posits “God” as the logically-first (or most fundamental) member of any and all existential hierarchical/ essentially ordered series - on which see Feser, Hart, Aquinas, etc. though argued for in different ways. Further, that the classical theists argues that the *absence* of such a Most Fundamental Member would mean the absence of everything else. Classical theists have given deductive arguments for the above conclusions. Some of the arguments seem hard to dismiss. That said, Oppy, Mackie, Rowe, etc (many high quality philosophically-savvy atheists) have raised objections worth engaging. This is a good channel, along with many others (eg Cameron’s).

[@lyterman]

You seem to be misunderstanding both the Trinity and divine simplicity.

[@ronaldmendonca6636]

@@lyterman Oh, ok. I'm misunderstanding God? Tell me what I have wrong, m8.

[@lyterman]

@@ronaldmendonca6636 Certainly! It seems to me you don't believe in God, so we can talk about a Christian conception of God instead. Divine simplicity describes an attribute of this God. It is not an argument that reads something like, "God is simple, so you should believe in Him." It seemed to me from your comment that that was the point you were aiming to make. The objection, "No God is simpler than God" is not an argument against divine simplicity. As for the Trinity, Trinitarians hold firmly that there is one God. There are three persons, but only one God. "Three gods" would not be accurate. I hope this helps, friend!

[@w4rsh1p]

What's simpler than zero exactly? Divine simplicity proves there is no god.

[@w4rsh1p]

Qwerty so Nothing is simpler than something? Why does god exist other than we needed to create him?

[@w4rsh1p]

Qwerty tell that to theists. I know that.

[@w4rsh1p]

Qwerty please explain how one is more simple than zero. If God is zero what’s the problem? We still lie to ourselves that we understand what an immaterial being means.

[@w4rsh1p]

@Qwerty Now you understand my feelings about theists.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

No, this is actually pretty sloppy reasoning, sorry.

[@w4rsh1p]

Listening to theists pretend to know literally anything about the magical realm they've created in their minds makes me a much stronger ignostic atheist. I now have evidence to back up my faith in being a zerotheist.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Typical KZbin douche bag

[@w4rsh1p]

meow meow meow typical theist

[@matthewantero5960]

@@w4rsh1p Wow. You refuted Theism. Believers hide!

[@w4rsh1p]

@@matthewantero5960 It's not hard to refute something that doesn't exist. You just have to acknowledge that fallacial arguments that require faith doesn't make theism true in the first place.

[@matthewantero5960]

@@w4rsh1p trust me, your assertions were never anticipated by any theist ever.

[@Chris.Davies]

Is intelligence compatible with wilful ignorance and extreme credulity? Humans create gods, not the other way around. You already don't believe in tens of thousands of man-made gods - why not add one more man-made god to the list?

[@SuperTonydd]

That's a simplistic view. Think about the necessity of being and contingency. Think about whether infinite regression can exist. Think about the necessity that some thing has to have always existed and what the nature of that might look like. That's what this is discussed