God is simple, not complex

[Gambit]

This is to correct a common misunderstanding that many atheists seem to have, namely, the mistaken belief that God is complex. God is simple, not complex. That's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence - for why there is something rather than nothing.

In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. (source: Wikipedia: Divine simplicity)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is to correct a common misunderstanding that many atheists seem to have, namely, the mistaken belief that God is complex. God is simple, not complex. That's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for mystery of existence - for why there is something rather than nothing.

Mm. Think its the other way around. Believers see him as "mysterious; cant be understood; beyond mere human knowledge; not like us; and so forth" thats making god complex.

Atheist, from so far I heard, said

"God 'could be' just mythology, not aware of us, fictional, impossible to know that he exists (agnostic), based on culture and psychology, based on human need to find meaning" Thats simple.

Why do believers make the supernatural so "special" and complicated for that matter?

 

[psychoslice]

Well if God is simple, not complex, could you explain this simple God to me ?.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As long as believers call god a mystery, he will be complicated.

As long as non believers can describe the cause of god by human means (need for purpose; need for authority; mythology; history), and can support their descriptions, its no longer a mystery.

Its simple.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This is to correct a common misunderstanding that many atheists seem to have, namely, the mistaken belief that God is complex.

You might as well claim that Santa Claus is thin rather than fat.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You might as well claim that Santa Claus is thin rather than fat.

Well, he has to be, doesn't he? To fit down all those chimneys?

 

[LuisDantas]

This is to correct a common misunderstanding that many atheists seem to have, namely, the mistaken belief that God is complex. God is simple, not complex. That's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence - for why there is something rather than nothing.

You are mistaken.

I assume you reached that conclusion when it was pointed out that there is no compelling reason to assume that there must have been a Creator God.

But it is not that atheists usually think of God as complex. We think of him as non-existent.

It is people who find the existence of a Creator God necessary who bother to think of him as simple or complex. Or both, I suppose.

Also, God is not a parsimonoius explanation, because he is no explanation at all. He is a non-answer given a motivational name, because apparently that matters a lot for some people.

Others, inclusing many or most theists, just don't mind not having answers for everything, in part because empty answers are not worth having.

(Edited to correct a mispelling of "atheists" in the fourth sentence).

 

[EtuMalku]

The reason that a god is complex and not simple is because what religious adherents are calling God / Deity are the multitudinous processes of the objective universe and its labyrinth of laws and dimensions.

 

[FearGod]

You are mistaken.

I assume you reached that conclusion when it was pointed out that there is no compelling reason to assume that there must have been a Creator God.

But it is not that theists usually think of God as complex. We think of him as non-existent.

It is people who find the existence of a Creator God necessary who bother to think of him as simple or complex. Or both, I suppose.

Also, God is not a parsimonoius explanation, because he is no explanation at all. He is a non-answer given a motivational name, because apparently that matters a lot for some people.

Others, inclusing many or most theists, just don't mind not having answers for everything, in part because empty answers are not worth having.

So what is existed other than God ?
How things started ? don't you think that a thing has started everything ?
What is your view as an atheist ? what's the other option than God.
Please straight and brief answer.

 

[Parsimony]

I think you've said before that you're not a Christian, so what attributes do you give to God? Do you think He is omnipotent? Omnipresent? Omniscient?

 

[Quintessence]

It should be noted that Gambit hardly speaks for all theists. Not all theists make their gods into "creator gods" that explain existence, and "complexity" is a highly relative assessment. Thank you.

 

[LuisDantas]

The reason that a god is complex and not simple is because what religious adherents are calling God / Deity are the multitudinous processes of the objective universe and its labyrinth of laws and dimensions.

Hardly, although I appreciate the effort.

What people call "God" are much more relatable sets of hopes, fears and expectations.

 

[LuisDantas]

So what is existed other than God ?

At the end of the day, we have knowledge that things exist because we perceive them.

Whether they had to be somehow created, or if they just exist with no explanation to speak of, is something else entirely, and not an entirely clear question to ask.

Some people certainly feel that the question needs an answer, and some of those people feel that divine creation is a meaningful answer. But that is just a psychological trick, unfortunately.

That is why the usual retort is very much legit:

"How could anything simply exist without a God to create existence"?

"How could such a creator God simply exist"?

There is no reason (other than human psychological needs) to expect an actual origin for existence itself.

Nor is there a reason to consider the idea of a creator god as if it were an actual explanation. It is just a name for the end result of an anxiety coupled with a name that is ultimately a placeholder with no clear signification. People are often encouraged to treat it as if it had a signification, and the social reinforcement can be impressive... but ultimately it is just a word with no meaning other than what people project into it.

How things started ?

I don't know that there was a start. Even if I knew, I don't think the idea of a creator God would be much of an explanation.

don't you think that a thing has started everything ?

No, I do not. I do not even find the question very meaningful.

What is your view as an atheist ?

About the origin of existence itself? I think it is a something of a trick question, one usually taken as far more important than it really is.

It has little if any practical significance and is ultimately at least in half built of human psychological needs as opposed to actual philosophical or cosmological inquiry.

Besides, it is to some degree unanswerable by design. Whichever answer one provides for it will then suit itself to the question of what originated that very answer.

At some point one has to simply admit that there is no answer as such, so why arbitrarily stop with an empty answer such as "God did it"? I find it much preferable to simply say that there is no satisfatory answer.

what's the other option than God.
Please straight and brief answer.

The short version then: "There is no need for a creator God, nor is it a true answer".

 

[Gambit]

Mm. Think its the other way around. Believers see him as "mysterious; cant be understood; beyond mere human knowledge; not like us; and so forth" thats making god complex

Classical theology understands God to be without parts and thus simple. I provided a link in the OP which explains the doctrine of divine simplicity in more detail. I suggest you read it.

 

[Gambit]

Well if God is simple, not complex, could you explain this simple God to me ?.

I have already explained that God is without parts and thus simple. For more details, I suggest you read the link I provided you in the OP.

 

[Gambit]

As long as believers call god a mystery, he will be complicated.

As long as non believers can describe the cause of god by human means (need for purpose; need for authority; mythology; history), and can support their descriptions, its no longer a mystery.

Its simple.

"Complexity is of the ego, and is nothing more than the ego's attempt to obscure the obvious." - A Course in Miracles

 

[Quintessence]

"Complexity is of the ego, and is nothing more than the ego's attempt to obscure the obvious." - A Course in Miracles

So... you're a big fan of that book?

 

[FearGod]

At the end of the day, we have knowledge that things exist because we perceive them.

Whether they had to be somehow created, or if they just exist with no explanation to speak of, is something else entirely, and not an entirely clear question to ask.

Some people certainly feel that the question needs an answer, and some of those people feel that divine creation is a meaningful answer. But that is just a psychological trick, unfortunately.

That is why the usual retort is very much legit:



There is no reason (other than human psychological needs) to expect an actual origin for existence itself.

Nor is there a reason to consider the idea of a creator god as if it were an actual explanation. It is just a name for the end result of an anxiety coupled with a name that is ultimately a placeholder with no clear signification. People are often encouraged to treat it as if it had a signification, and the social reinforcement can be impressive... but ultimately it is just a word with no meaning other than what people project into it.




I don't know that there was a start. Even if I knew, I don't think the idea of a creator God would be much of an explanation.




No, I do not. I do not even find the question very meaningful.



About the origin of existence itself? I think it is a something of a trick question, one usually taken as far more important than it really is.

It has little if any practical significance and is ultimately at least in half built of human psychological needs as opposed to actual philosophical or cosmological inquiry.

Besides, it is to some degree unanswerable by design. Whichever answer one provides for it will then suit itself to the question of what originated that very answer.

At some point one has to simply admit that there is no answer as such, so why arbitrarily stop with an empty answer such as "God did it"? I find it much preferable to simply say that there is no satisfatory answer.



The short version then: "There is no need for a creator God, nor is it a true answer".

Your answer in short "it can be anything but not God"

 

[Gambit]

You might as well claim that Santa Claus is thin rather than fat.

I find your theological illiteracy to be appalling.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your answer in short "it can be anything but not God"

More like "it would have to be something better defined and less psychological than God to be an actual answer".