God is simple, not complex.

[Unveiled Artist]

It sounds like pantheism to me. At any rate, it doesn't have any relevance to the topic at hand.

/shrugs/ If you like. I researched it... doesn't click, sorry. Animism is the cloest I get the isms they have on this site.

 

[Conceivia]

I think that God is Truth and Truth is God. The only question is whether that Truth is conscious and self-aware or not.

I can understand wondering if a plant or a microbe is self aware and conscious, but God? God is probably a billion times more intelligent than us humans.

In science we tend to look for things like self preservation, when we try to determine if an entity is living or not.

I have shown that God's plan is World Peace. That is a self preservation plan. Granted, if we humans destroy ourselves, we probably won't quite kill God, but we'll probably kill 2/3s of the species of life, and 95% or so of the life on the planet.

Even so, I would argue that World Peace still qualifies as self preservation for God. There really is no guarantee that any life will survive World War 3. Some will probably survive, but no guarantee.

Tony

 

[Ouroboros]

You sound confused.

Yes. I'm confused how the watchmaker can be simple. You say God is simple, yet the "complex God' argument really comes as a response to the "watchmaker argument". So yes, I'm confused, how is this Watchmaker simple?

 

[Ouroboros]

I've asked you this before, but I never received a response. What exactly do you understand the "ground of being" to be?

Fabric of existence and reality. Not just the beginning, but continuously this instance. My view is a mix. Perhaps I shouldn't have the ground of being there since it seems to confuse people. But I've noticed that it doesn't matter what terms or labels we use to identify ourselves with, there's always people who misread or misunderstand what we really do believe.

To quote Paul Tillich "God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him." And "God is being-itself, not a being."

Or put it this way, God is the very essence of existence, life, energy, force, thought, etc. God isn't the "beginner" or "causer" as in an agent doing or creating something, but we are in this moment the very representation of God's essence, and so is all things around us.

Another term that perhaps can help understand my view is that God (as potential) is the substrate, but God is also the result of that potential, as a realization of God.

So my view is both Ground of Being and Naturalistic Pantheism, and that kind'a makes me also a Panentheist.

In the end, someone proving God or God's properties is not actually proving God's existence at all, but only proving or showing that person's views and ideas of God. All these threads you have started trying to prove that God exists fails because you are proving things, that's true, but your not proving God. You're assuming that what you're proving to exist is God. My view is that God doesn't need to be proved. God is a word we use to describe what we feel reverence and awe for. What we can trust, rely on, feel amazed by, and know exists far beyond our understanding, that's what we label God. When someone use the God label to describe something completely outside and separate from this world, I feel they're denying God. In other words, your attempts to prove God aren't proving anything. The day you understand this, that's the day you stop worrying about finding evidence for God. You don't have to anymore.

On another note, each attempt to use logic, reasoning, and parts of science to prove God, you are thinking in scientific about God and not intuitively. God is what's inside you. Not something you dissect with reductive methods. God isn't a deduction, but an induction from what you believe to be the greatest of reality and existence.

Something like that. Hope that helps.

--edit

And one more thing, the reason I'm asking you questions and trying to challenge your views isn't to prove you wrong but to perhaps wake you up. I consider you to be very smart and have great thoughts, but you're stuck in this trap that the reductionist scientist philosophy somehow can show you who and what God is. It can't. Stop thinking so much...

--edit2

Yet something more, the way I see Ground of Being is that it's the ongoing being, not the beginning. It's not Ground of Beginning, but Ground of Being present tense.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I've asked you this before, but I never received a response. What exactly do you understand the "ground of being" to be?

Perhaps the obtuse nature of the question has discouraged replies?

What do you even mean by "the ground of being?"

 

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps the obtuse nature of the question has discouraged replies?

What do you even mean by "the ground of being?"

He was asking me, because it's under my "religion" label.

 

[rivenrock]

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.)

Atheists do not understand God to be complex. They understand him to be non-existent. Nothing complex about that.

 

[Nunjima]

Presumably the universe started with a kind of ultimate simplicity, From that beginning all matter, antimatter, energy etc came out or manifested and evolved into amazing complexity.

 

[notexceling]

God can be explain in simple mathematics

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12....
Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one.
Potentially an infinite amount...
But in truth....
Only one number does exist
The number "1"
E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
That is because "1" explains itself and every other number.
In fact, every number is a repetition (more precisely a reproduction) of the number "1".
Not only does it explain every whole number but it also explains every type of number.
For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".
50% =
1/2 =
0.5 OF 1

What's so special about "1" is it is also complete
1 = 100%
In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end.
In maths this is signified with brackets ( )
( <------bound, beginning
) <------end, finish
*****(We do not use the brackets because we consider it common knowledge.)
In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths. That is why brackets are done first in arithmetical equation
e.g
(3+2) x (3+1) = 20
or
(5) x (4) = (20)
5 x 4 = 20
One is 100% completely bounded and ended to itself.
(1) or (100%)
Hence this instantly means "(1)", the number "1" is the finite because of is finite restriction.
ANYTHING that can be calculated is.
Instantly our universe becomes finite (1) even if it has potentially infinite possibilities (∞).
∞ = infinity.
A concept not a number meaning boundless/endless
Unrestricted (beyond brackets)
This is what has come to be known as potential infinite, even though it's just studying the ∞ possibilities within (1).
If we accept (∞) as anything more it would be the greatest oxymoron in the history of mankind.
There is also another restriction of the number (1)
That is because by itself can not do much.
It needs a medium or a language to communicate.
multiple, divide, square root Etc are all fancy and group methods of doing the core symbols of maths.
Addition and subtraction
+ -
Just like (1),
(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.
Example
(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)
So inside every (1) we have (+|-).
E.g
Man = (1)
And he has (+|-) within himself.
Think of anything Positive and negative, Addition subtraction, Time space, Proton electron, Good Bad, Right Wrong, Light Dark
We can even say
Yin Yang for good measure
All we have is equal and opposites and one can not exist without the other. Black exists because of white and vice versa.
Think of anything, chemistry, biology, physics even non scientific subjects like morale; you can even say from a materialistic morale point of view, water is our greatest asset, the reason for life yet, our greatest restriction.
Anything from a positive and a negative within a finite position can be explained quite easily.
(+ -) within (1)
Now to make it interesting..........
Scientifically we know we are living in 1 x (E=mc2), we are restricted.
My question is say we calculated everything that exists in our (1) universe.
Hypothetically lets say
everything = (100)
What would be
1 + (100) = ?
It can not be 101
Reason
Everything has already been calculated and it equalled (100)
Let me rephrase the question
from my brief explanation above what would be
1 + (finite)
1 + (maths)
1 + (1)
1 + (universe)
1 + (everything)
1 + (100%)
1 + (E=mc2)
1 + (+|-)
????
It must be something outside of the bound and end (brackets)
Our concept of this is called
Absolute (meaning 100%)
Infinity
∞
A CONCEPT (NOT A NUMBER) beyond all bounds "(" and ends ")"
So in an equation
1 + (1) = ∞
Or as explained before the core language of (1) is maths (+|-)
The theory of Absolute Infinity
1 + (+|-) = ∞
Even though I have not surpassed our laws of mathematics, it displays something beyond mathematics.
What so special about this equation?
It explain outside of our brackets
God is complete 1
100%
Yet he is incomprehensible
∞
It explains that we have the option of either choosing a + path or - negative
If on the day of judgment "=" (The day of TOTALLING/Tallying/equal sign)
our good deeds out way our bad
1 + ( + > - ) = + ∞
You will end up in eternal positive or heaven
Respectively
1 + ( + < -) = - ∞
Hell
God 1 = ∞
Created +
Everything (+ - )
and he only gives + "good" to all creation
and everything (1) was made in pairs (+ - )
LETS GET INTO SCIENCE:
__________________
Quote: "If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light."
So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.
1 + (1) = ∞
__________________
Mathematics studies the (+ | - ) laws to understand the (1) value.
Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | - ) laws.
__________________
Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.
The equation covers this aspect quite easily".
A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.
It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.
+ ( + | - ) This is the equation of Quantum mechanics,
And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies
__________________
Prisca Theologia
+(+|-) Atheist, understand natural law exist and Quanta
(∞)=∞ Pantheist, the universe is God
(1)=∞ Buddha said, look within yourself (1) and find your personal (∞) nirvana.
( 1 + (+|-) = ∞) Christianity,
father 1=∞
holy spirit +
son (+|-)
Exterior brackets trinity
(holy spirit is the deliverer of the law, the son is earthly bound (+-) son)
Even though Jesus can have potentially have an (∞) possibilities within him, he can never be God. That is why he always said the father ∞ is greater than I (1)
Islam
Surah 112
Say he is one
1
on all whom depend +
he begets not, (+)
nor is begotten (-)
(+|-)
and none is like him ∞
---->It is everywhere (on every page in every Surah) in the Quran .<--------
Cantor actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)
I'm merely saying the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call this concept Allah, God, Absolute Infinite. Whats important to understand is that a concept beyond anything calculable (including all the potential infinities) does exist, as Cantor proclaimed.
To leave you with some food for thought,
We humans are (1) within this Big (1)
Every (1) human is restricted to its experiences ( + - ) .
Everything (1) that exists is restricted to its own.
For example
We can not imagine what someone else imagines to the exact detail nor can we conjure up something unimaginable because everything you imagine is subject to your own wiring and experiences or, your moment in time within the space of your life.
If every human analysed the exact same picture, the picture stored in all our brain will always be uniquely ours and different to everyone else's. ALWAYS.
Nothing outside of your restricted (1) can be contemplated because we are restricted by our unique Addition and Subtraction. (+ -).
This is what I consider is the human mental capacity blind spot.
There is an infinite possible chances of there being other realms out there, but your realm is restricted to you.
I'll try explaining it this way,
If we never communicated ever do I really exist for you or vice versa.
Mathematically yes I am tangible but because you never experience me I would be your mental blind spot.
If you want to go deeper in the rabbit hole….. even though we've contacted each other now and we're communicating, you STILL can't be sure I exist. The only thing you can be sure about is yourself.
That means (+-) everything was made for you (1).
Theres an easy way of proving the world was made only for your experience.
Prostrate and put your head on the ground.
Your the centre point of the earth. The highest point.
The earth is round.
No matter where on earth you go, you are its focal point of balance. Quite literally your on top of the world……..and the day you reach your appointed time (not me) will be the day the world ends.
I thank you for your time and space (+-)
May ∞ bless you
James

 

[Gambit]

Pieces of knowledge have to be differentiated from one-another in order for them to actually be distinguishable. One is not the same as two and as such any being which contains knowledge of both one and two has to store them as separate entities. Infinite numbers equal infinite information content. It doesn't matter whether the information is obtained from another source or is intrinsic to the being. The result is the same: infinite complexity is needed to store infinite information/knowledge.

God's omniscience is not a composite knowledge because he knows everything by knowing his divine essence as imitable.

"Although God knows Himself and all else by His own essence, yet His essence is the operative principle of all things, except of Himself. It has therefore the nature of an idea with respect to other things; though not with respect to Himself." - St. Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologiae," I.15.1, ad 2

 

[Gambit]

Which isn't simple. To have a will is to know things and have intent.

Properly speaking, God does not have a will. God is his will. Or, we might say that "having" and "being" are one and the same with God.

Which isn't the same as simple, in neither qualitative or quantitative sense.

Yes, it is simple because Cantor's Absolute Infinite (in the first context) denotes "completeness," "wholeness," "oneness," In short, it denotes perfection. And it accounts for the contingent, created world (in the second context).

Seems like it's getting more complex.

No, it's simple. Cantor is invoking one principle - namely, the "reflection principle" to explain everything else based on the reflection of the Absolute. Classical theology calls this "reflection principle" "imitablity."

Maybe, but I know I used the same argument many years ago when debating with Christians about God's properties or existence. To say that the world is too complex not to have a creator is to suggest a complex creator. This watch is too complex to have been made out of chance, there's a watchmaker who made it. That means a watchmaker is... simple?

I fail to see why invoking "nothing" (which you and other atheists have attempted to do) qualifies as a more satisfactory explanation than invoking God.

 

[Gambit]

If God is so simple then why is it so hard to describe him.

To deny divine simplicity is to deny theism.

 

[Gambit]

if GOD is so simple, then why is humanity so complex? how can the creator be less complex than the creation?

Because human beings are a composition parts - namely, the compositions of "act and potency," "form and matter," and "essence and existence."

 

[Gambit]

I agree 100%.

It frustrates me that Atheists often 'create' the simplest, uniform, most child-like rendition of 'God' to then dismiss it (in other words they build a straw man).

God is simpler than anything we could ever imagine. The essential nature of reality is one. Seperation is an illusion. There is nothing simpler than true reality, once we've cast off the illusions created and reinforced by our thirsty egos.

Agreed. Complexity is actually of the ego, not God.

 

[Gambit]

What does God or ultimate reality have to do with simplicity, specifically?

Well, I stated that in the OP. God is without parts. God is identical with his attributes and his attributes are identical with each other.

According to your view, how do we untwist our minds?

Ultimately, we are responsible for untangling our own mind. That being said, I would say it involves the cultivation of the intuitive aspect of the mind which sees wholeness, oneness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To deny divine simplicity is to deny theism.

Only when one assumes that God must be simple. It all seems circular to me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.)

Atheist do not much think about God unless prodded by theists. I do discuss origins. As a Hindu atheist I consider 'physical energy' to be the cause of the universe. Although we do not know all properties of energy, the basic rules are generally simple in physics.

I have shown that God's plan is World Peace.

Since when? And how come God does not succeed in his plans? At an earlier time it was a snake, now what? The Middle-East and sub-Sahara is burning.

God is what's inside you.

And what is outside you?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"the ground of being?"

I've come across a similar term in Dzogchen, which is a Buddhist school. It's probably not what is meant here though.

But yes, phrases like these really do need to unpacked and explained, otherwise it's just another bit of jargon.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ground of being and non-being is 'what exists' - Brahman.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then you probably should not spend anymore time attempting to debate these issues.

Maybe you shouldn't keep making unsubstantiated assertions and moving the goalposts on what "God" is supposed to be.

I still haven't seen any coherent evidence for your assertion that God is simple, just a series of bland assumptions. So how do you know God is simple, and what evidence do you have for this assertion? What evidence can you produce to show that God isn't complex?

Are you saying that you know God, or is this all just theological speculation, angels on pin-heads?