God is simple, not complex.

[Gambit]

James,

I believe you have something there. But you need to simplify it by working out some of the kinks.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It doesn't appear to me that you understand the basics of Buddhism.

Making such a statement implies that you understand the basics of Buddhism yourself, so could you tell me what you think they are?
We don't want to derail the thread, so by all means send me a PM with your ideas.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

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).

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."

Ok. It makes a bit more sense.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. You just need to listen and try to understand. If you don't, that's up to you, but there's no learning in that, is there? Why ask the question if you don't want the answers?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why ask the question if you don't want the answers?

Why indeed. The difficulty in a thread like this is that I don't see questions, just assertions.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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).

A difficulty here is that theists all seem to have their own personal version of "God'. There are a million and one different ideas about what "God" is, some simple, some complex, some personal, some impersonal, the permutations are endless.

This does tend to confirm the view that "God" is a purely personal invention rather than an objective truth. If "God" was an objective truth then surely one would expect some consistency.

 

[Ouroboros]

A difficulty here is that theists all seem to have their own personal version of "God'. There are a million and one different ideas about what "God" is, some simple, some complex, some personal, some impersonal, the permutations are endless.

That's correct. And personally, I think that's how it should be. God is the placeholder for the thoughts and beliefs we have about how the universe and reality works. The question is really, why do we call something God instead of some alternative name? In my case, I feel that the term God should reflect what gives me awe and reflection. What is it that I find to be worthy of my thoughts on a daily basis? What does give me pause and evict a sense of reverence? To me, it's reality, nature, universe, existence, mind, everything in total. It's more powerful than me. It's eternal, and infinite. It's the mystery of life, and it makes me think of the divine, but not in the personal entity God external to it all, but rather all of this all together, and me in it, becomes this. These emotions bring about something more than just calling it this or that. The only word that kind'a gets there that can be used to express this amazement is "God". We have no other word to collect that emotion.

And I think that most people who are theists come from this point regardless of what philosophical "proofs" they concoct. We don't have to prove that there's some mystical force transcending the universe. There might be one, or there might not be, but there's no need to prove such a thing. Proving God is basically using the scientific method to create a God who is nothing more than a banana on a tree. Look! I'm going to prove to you that bananas exist. Here's a banana. Therefore God exist! Yay! What the person does is reducing God to one thing, a separate thing from all other things, and you're missing God anyway.

This does tend to confirm the view that "God" is a purely personal invention rather than an objective truth. If "God" was an objective truth then surely one would expect some consistency.

Absolutely. God isn't a thing. God is the personal invention, subjective view, of the world. It's one of the words that shouldn't be subject to reductionism or logic. It's not about "what is it", but "how is it to you?" It's the term the describes you, the subjective truth of you. Not the term that describes some objective truth out there as a science experiment, which theists tend to do. It becomes "science of God" instead of "what flavor of God satisfy your needs?" Theology should be more of a cooking school, how to learn to balance the flavors, and learn if you like vanilla more than chocolate or not, but there's no truth in the end which flavor that absolutely everyone has to like.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

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

Then by all means ... clarify at will.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

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

Q. - Is there anything simpler than that which does not exist?

 

[Ouroboros]

Then by all means ... clarify at will.

I did, in an earlier post, or I tried to.

If I'll try to make a simple definition, it would be the foundation of existence. The framework on which reality can be real. It's beyond our understanding and logic. It's not deduced, but induced. We know it by intuition, not by reducing or dissecting it as a frog. It's existence is proved by the simple fact that we exist at this moment, and our personal existence is part of the existence of the whole.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The question is really, why do we call something God instead of some alternative name? In my case, I feel that the term God should reflect what gives me awe and reflection. What is it that I find to be worthy of my thoughts on a daily basis? What does give me pause and evict a sense of reverence? To me, it's reality, nature, universe, existence, mind, everything in total. It's more powerful than me. It's eternal, and infinite. It's the mystery of life, and it makes me think of the divine, but not in the personal entity God external to it all, but rather all of this all together, and me in it, becomes this. These emotions bring about something more than just calling it this or that. The only word that kind'a gets there that can be used to express this amazement is "God". We have no other word to collect that emotion.

Actually I think "divine" would be a much better word, or perhaps "transcendent", or even just "the universe" which I think most would agree is pretty awesome.
The problem I see with "God" is all the Abrahamic baggage that goes with it, and the fact that most believers do seem to have a fairly simplistic personalist view, including most of the Christians I've talked to over the years.
So while you might argue that "God" is a convenient short-hand, it looks to me crude, lazy and inappropriate.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

In my case, I feel that the term God should reflect what gives me awe and reflection. What is it that I find to be worthy of my thoughts on a daily basis?

Isn't it easier to use the already existing word for whatever it happens to be that's provoking your sense of awe and causing you to reflect?

What does give me pause and evict a sense of reverence?

Q. - If your sense of reverence gets evicted, does it end up on the streets?

To me, it's reality, nature, universe, existence, mind, everything in total. It's more powerful than me. It's eternal, and infinite. It's the mystery of life, and it makes me think of the divine, but not in the personal entity God external to it all, but rather all of this all together, and me in it, becomes this.

The universe does inspire awe. I'm still inclined to refer to it as The Universe and not anthropomorphize it.

These emotions bring about something more than just calling it this or that. The only word that kind'a gets there that can be used to express this amazement is "God".

Some folks might offer a "Like ... Wow man!"

So "God" is just your own personal shorthand for a shortage of vocabulary?

We have no other word to collect that emotion.

We?

We don't have to prove that there's some mystical force transcending the universe.

You might if you're going to assert that there actually is some mystical force transcending the universe.

There might be one, or there might not be, but there's no need to prove such a thing.

I suppose that might be correct ... in the same sense that the universe might be a soap bubble circling the drain in God's bathroom or it might not be. Or that the universe might just be a stem on a gigantic stalk of cosmic broccoli. Or it might not be.

That's the beauty of such cosmic equivocation. It might be important, or it might not be.

Proving God is basically using the scientific method to create a God who is nothing more than a banana on a tree. Look! I'm going to prove to you that bananas exist. Here's a banana. Therefore God exist! Yay! What the person does is reducing God to one thing, a separate thing from all other things, and you're missing God anyway.

What is it about theistic arguments and bananas anyway?

Setting tropical fruits aside, isn't it the nature of monotheistic religions to reduce God to one thing? Isn't this the point of monotheism?

God isn't a thing.

Because things tend to exist, right?

God is the personal invention, subjective view, of the world. It's one of the words that shouldn't be subject to reductionism or logic. It's not about "what is it", but "how is it to you?"

It's non-existent. Or it's whatever we already happen to call it.

Not the term that describes some objective truth out there as a science experiment, which theists tend to do. It becomes "science of God" instead of "what flavor of God satisfy your needs?" Theology should be more of a cooking school, how to learn to balance the flavors, and learn if you like vanilla more than chocolate or not, but there's no truth in the end which flavor that absolutely everyone has to like.

If only monotheism didn't demand that you join God's fan club and believe in some sort of (divinely ordained) objective truth.

"... there's no truth in the end ..."

Perhaps not.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually I think "divine" would be a much better word, or perhaps "transcendent", or even just "the universe" which I think most would agree is pretty awesome.
The problem I see with "God" is all the Abrahamic baggage that goes with it, and the fact that most believers do seem to have a fairly simplistic personalist view, including most of the Christians I've talked to over the years.

Sure. But the Abrahamic baggage is only in parts of the world. And I do think we need to redefine the word for the future to help us all to get out of the old and outdated ideas. There's been several philosophers trying to do this, but unfortunately it seems like the word is constantly hijacked by fundamentalists.

So while you might argue that "God" is a convenient short-hand, it looks to me crude, lazy and inappropriate.

Well, that's what you feel about it. And I'm okay with that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There's been several philosophers trying to do this, but unfortunately it seems like the word is constantly hijacked by fundamentalists.

Yes, that is a problem. Maybe we should leave "God" for them and work out something better.

 

[Ouroboros]

Isn't it easier to use the already existing word for whatever it happens to be that's provoking your sense of awe and causing you to reflect?

The Universe works too, but I don't feel it encapsulates the whole idea.


[/quote]
Q. - If your sense of reverence gets evicted, does it end up on the streets?
[/quote]
?

The universe does inspire awe. I'm still inclined to refer to it as The Universe and not anthropomorphize it.

I don't see the word "God" as a person or entity, so I'm not anthropomorphizing it. Anthropomorphizing is when you put human properties and features on a natural phenomenon, but I don't. Rather the opposite. I don't describe God as personal, conscious, willful, or any other human concept. God is the concept that's beyond those comprehensions.

Some folks might offer a "Like ... Wow man!"

Sure.

So "God" is just your own personal shorthand for a shortage of vocabulary?

That's a bit rude.

We?

Sorry. "We" in general, but not necessary everyone. You might have a better word, of course, that fits you.

You might if you're going to assert that there actually is some mystical force transcending the universe.

Kind'a. The "mystical" force could be Higgs field, multidimensional branes, and so on. There are still many unanswered questions about how this universe works, and it's possible that reality extends beyond this universe into an infinite structure of reality that we can't even understand. So yeah, that's the mystery, and the word is "the reality that extends beyond this universe into an eternal and infinite structure that we can't understand" But it's a bit too long. What other word would you suggest?

I suppose that might be correct ... in the same sense that the universe might be a soap bubble circling the drain in God's bathroom or it might not be. Or that the universe might just be a stem on a gigantic stalk of cosmic broccoli. Or it might not be.

That's the beauty of such cosmic equivocation. It might be important, or it might not be.

The importance is really only about the person and his/her view.

What is it about theistic arguments and bananas anyway?

Setting tropical fruits aside, isn't it the nature of monotheistic religions to reduce God to one thing? Isn't this the point of monotheism?

Yes. That's why I reject monotheism and theism in general. Essentially, I'm an atheist. Start with that, then go to on and see what explanations we have for how this world works. Then, admit that the world is far more amazing than we ever can understand. Then give it a word or name that evokes this emotion of awe. That word is Banana.

Because things tend to exist, right?

Yup. They do.

It's non-existent. Or it's whatever we already happen to call it.

Not sure what you mean.

If only monotheism didn't demand that you join God's fan club and believe in some sort of (divinely ordained) objective truth.

Agree. And I feel that most of the time when a theist is trying to prove God's existence, it's really about converting people to their belief rather than discussing different flavor of ice cream.

Perhaps not.

The only objective truth we have is that all our understanding of this world is ultimately subjective.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"the reality that extends beyond this universe into an eternal and infinite structure that we can't understand" But it's a bit too long. What other word would you suggest?

How about "reality"?

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, that is a problem. Maybe we should leave "God" for them and work out something better.

Yeah. Like Glob. Or Muckamuckablehblorg. I'm sure that helps.

That's why phrases like "Ground of Being (GoB)" or Ein Sof or Fabric of Reality (FoR?) are all useful instead of "God". But in the end, God is a term that can be used, if people only want to modify their definitions a little.

Some of my inspirations have been Meister Eckhart, Eckhart Tolle, Spinoza, Heraclitus, Ken Wilber, and Joseph Campbell. Just to name a few if you're interested in seeing different uses of the term "God".

 

[Ouroboros]

How about "reality"?

I do use that as well. And I tend to capitalize it as Reality when I use it to describe the totality. But I do use the term God as well to have some influence on the concepts simply because in the end, the term God, Reality, Nature, All, are all useful and describe the same thing.

 

[Khatru]

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.)

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.

 

[AllanV]

When sin came into the world a mind was revealed that did not measure up, it missed the mark.
Each personality with own self belief then interacted in a complex web of exchanges. This continues today.

There can be separation from the old mind and it is replaced with awareness only.
It is empowered. The whole body is energized. There is no thought required the answer is there without effort. The answer is a whole concept.

 

[Looncall]

I did, in an earlier post, or I tried to.

If I'll try to make a simple definition, it would be the foundation of existence. The framework on which reality can be real. It's beyond our understanding and logic. It's not deduced, but induced. We know it by intuition, not by reducing or dissecting it as a frog. It's existence is proved by the simple fact that we exist at this moment, and our personal existence is part of the existence of the whole.

Ah, I see. Just delusion, then. With a soupcon of balderdash.