God is simple, not complex.

[Gambit]

Making such a statement implies that you understand the basics of Buddhism yourself

I do.

so could you tell me what you think they are?

The basics of Buddhism is not the subject matter of this thread. Besides, you're the one who professes to be a Buddhist (not me). So, if you want to discuss the basics of Buddhism, then I suggest you start a thread on it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Classical theism does not hold that God is a mere being among other beings; rather it holds that God is existence itself.

"God is the only being whose essence is existence itself." - St. Thomas Aquinas

Existence" is the "isness" or "being" of a thing. (IOW, Tillich is simply co-opting terms from Aquinas. Tillich is espousing what I would call "existentialist theology." But existentialism itself has its roots in the existential metaphysics of Aquinas.)

Oh. I didn't know that.

If the universe is finite, then your God is finite.'

Is the panentheistic view that the universe is all there is?

I have already explained to you that panENtheism holds that God is transcendent as well as immanent. Also, "unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[2] panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.[3]" (source: Wikipedia: panentheism)[

[/quote]
I'm curious. Is there a difference between theism and panentheism, or are the the same? What about you, are you a panentheist?

It appears you're simply using the term "God" poetically - what Dawkins would characterized as "sexed-up atheism."

Yes. Very much so. It's an synonymous word for the totality of Reality (ultimate reality).

Science is actually based on induction.

Oops. Yes, you're right. I didn't think that one through fully.

I have argued emphatically and unequivocally that science cannot explain why there is something rather nothing.

Can panentheism?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I attempting to correct a basic misunderstanding that atheists like yourself have.

Theists have a 101 different interpretations of God, so it seems the "misunderstanding" is not of an atheist's making.

 

[Ouroboros]

Theists have a 101 different interpretations of God, so it seems the "misunderstanding" is not of an atheist's making.

Also, atheists don't make the assumption that God is complex, they make the assumption that theists suggests a complex God to explain the complex universe. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding between them two, or perhaps it's the lack of explanation and definitions available to the theists to really describe why something complex must have a "God" to create it but isn't complex in itself. Essentially, it's not the atheists' view that God is complex, but many atheists get that impression from the theists (mostly Christians).

The argument tends to go something like this:
C. The universe is too complex not to have a creator
A. So you're saying that there has to be something or someone more complex that created it?
C. Yeah.
A. Then why doesn't God have a creator?
...

Now we're learning that the proper answer from the Christian should be: No, God is simpler than the universe.

Now, it's just a matter of making all Christians and theists to know this. God is simpler than the universe, that's the word.

The funny thing is, I can't help but think of the Singularity at this point.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Are you saying that you know what "Buddha-nature" is?

No, but then I'm not making any unsubstantiated assertions about "Buddha-nature", so this is a straw-man.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Now we're learning that the proper answer from the Christian should be: No, God is simpler than the universe.

The idea that God can be "proved" in any meaningful sense looks nonsensical to me, and I don't understand why theists spend so much time on these speculative theological convolutions.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

The idea that God can be "proved" in any meaningful sense looks nonsensical to me

Obviously, God can be "proved" in any number of meaningless senses.

and I don't understand why theists spend so much time on these speculative theological convolutions.

Isn't theism itself essentially convoluted speculation?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Isn't theism itself essentially convoluted speculation?

I guess it is.

 

[Gambit]

I didn't invoke it as an explanation. I don't believe there was nothing. My only point was that if you talk about simplicity and argue that God is the simplest thing, then nothing is a simpler thing than something. Zero is less than one.

Zero is less than one. But "nothingness" is not simpler than "oneness." But more to the point, "nothing" does not explain anything.

That doesn't mean that this is what I believe or not. I tend to, quite a lot in fact, act a bit like the devil's advocate to try to bring point to light.

People like to play devil's advocate because it's easier to attack a position than defend one.

If you want to know what I believe about the beginning of the universe, I believe something existed before it, but I don't call that God, at least not just that. God is more than that. God is more than the singularity.

The metaphysical doctrine of creation holds that the creation is an act taking place now. Even if the universe has always existed in time, the argument from contingency still applies. Because it is meant to establish a "ground of being." (This is something that you have not appeared to grasp.)

And this thread really started with the charge against atheists that they're wrong about God being complex, but I have several times tried to explain to you the context in which atheists make that claim

Atheists who make that argument are wrong. God is simple, not complex. And I know perfectly well why they make it. They make it because they believe something simpler must be invoked to explain something more complex (which, by the way, I do not disagree with. The principle of parsimony, after all, was employed in theology and metaphysics long before it was co-opted by science).

 

[Gambit]

Actually, it's safer to say that atheists don't consider yours, nor indeed, anyone else's gods to have any sort of characteristic. Simplicity and complexity don't even come into it.

The more scientifically-inclined atheist is the atheist who is more likely to invoke "Occam's razor" (for reasons I have already explained).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

God is simple, not complex.

If you're claiming that as a statement of fact then you need to prove it. You haven't so far.

I could claim that "Space aliens are among us" for example, and you would quite rightly ask "How do you know that?"

If you said "I believe God is simple" based on a particular form of reasoning, that would be different, the problem here is that you claiming it as fact.

 

[Gambit]

I don't see how that is supposed to make infinite knowledge simple.

That's because, where you see "multiplicity," God sees "oneness."

God knows an infinite number of things. If He does not, then He is not omniscient. If He derives His omniscience from His divine essence, then His divine essence must contain infinite information.

The theological concept of "imitability" of the divine essence appears to have parallels in both mathematics (the "reflection principle") and physics (the "holographic principle").

 

[Gambit]

The "Watchmaker" argument isn't mine.

It's certainly not mine.

 

[Gambit]

I mean the very division that makes you separate and independent of me. This whole current world is under "law". It's a spiritual law and it always causes division and separation. This is the true meaning of "death". It simply a separation form and of God himself.

(I believe the Bible at face value) and have concluded that this entire current world of "darkness" is really a small part of God himself put under law and subdivided into smaller parts. One day it will be dissolved and the law will be "fulfilled" and we will all go back to (re)joining God again.

I see. I wouldn't quite put in those terms. But I think I get the gist.

 

[Gambit]

If you're claiming that as a statement of fact then you need to prove it. You haven't so far..

I'm making a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one. (You apparently can't distinguish between the two.)

 

[Parsimony]

That's because, where you see "multiplicity," God sees "oneness."

What evidence do you have that God sees everything as one? He most certainly doesn't see good and evil as the same thing (if we assume the Abrahamic God, that is). All numbers cannot be the same number. Mathematics would break down and be useless if that was true. How can something have parts and not have parts at the same time (on the most fundamental level, of course) without this being a logical contradiction?

The theological concept of "imitability" of the divine essence appears to have parallels in both mathematics (the "reflection principle") and physics (the "holographic principle").

I have never heard of the reflection principle before. I don't see anything in the article about all things being the same thing. A set itself has parts. The holographic principle doesn't say anything to that effect either. Both these still rely on the fact that one thing can in fact be differentiated from another thing. If all things were the same, then the reflection principle, the holographic principle, the theory of relativity and even ice cream would all be the same thing anyway and would all have the same definition. Do you support that idea?

 

[Ouroboros]

People like to play devil's advocate because it's easier to attack a position than defend one.

And so is attacking the person rather than the argument.

The metaphysical doctrine of creation holds that the creation is an act taking place now. Even if the universe has always existed in time, the argument from contingency still applies. Because it is meant to establish a "ground of being." (This is something that you have not appeared to grasp.)

I do grasp it. I'm not sure you do.

Atheists who make that argument are wrong. God is simple, not complex. And I know perfectly well why they make it. They make it because they believe something simpler must be invoked to explain something more complex (which, by the way, I do not disagree with. The principle of parsimony, after all, was employed in theology and metaphysics long before it was co-opted by science).

Sure. But the ones actually making the argument is Christian Theists who argue that God is the Watchmaker (more complex than the universe). The atheists that you accuse of doing this aren't really. They're just responding to the Theists argument that God is complex. You're obviously not one of them. You are essentially siding with the atheists who argue that God can't be more complex than the universe, so I'm not sure what your beef with the atheists are since you're on the same side.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's certainly not mine.

Agree. It's not. Your argument is that atheists thinks God is complex, and that they're wrong. But you continue to avoid the issue that atheists only use this argument when a theist is positing this first.

 

[Aupmanyav]

God sees "oneness."

True oneness is that where cause is not different from the result. That is Brahman of Hinduism.

"Physical energy" is not self-explanatory.

Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zen Sensei]

Atheists seem to have this basic misunderstanding that God is complex. This is not true. God is simple, not complex. In theology, this is known as the doctrine of "divine simplicity." (This is why I can argue that God is the most parsimonious explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.)

If "divine simplicity" means without parts. He does not have even contain one bit (zero or one) of information, then he does not exist.