God is simple, not complex.

[Ouroboros]

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

Awww. You're too kind.

 

[Parsimony]

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

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

 

[psychoslice]

I think your wrong, the believer of god makes him complex, lets face it , for a man in the sky who supposedly made everything in six day, well, that's pretty complex lol.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

balderdash.

I like that word.

 

[Looncall]

I like that word.

Me too. I find it handy when I want to express exasperation.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

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

Q. - Does the universe need ideas?

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

That comment was directed at a statement you made:

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

So when you indicated that something evicts your sense of reverence, I thought it worth the time to ask what you meant by that. Did you really mean to say that God/The Universe evicts your sense of reverence?

Did you mean to say "evoke?"

I don't see the word "God" as a person or entity, so I'm not anthropomorphizing it.

Aside from giving it a name, right? I guess it's a good thing God's name is "God" and not "Louie."

Anthropomorphizing is when you put human properties and features on a natural phenomenon, but I don't.

And again, names aren't human properties. Correct?

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.

Isn't the unknown a human concept?

That's a bit rude.

I'll stop just short of a full apology, and remind you that my fairly innocuous comment was the result of your open admission that you employ the word "God" when you find yourself at a loss for words when contemplating the universe. That is essentially what you were saying, right?

The English language has one of the richest vocabularies of any language on Earth. If you seriously expect me to believe that you can find no more suitable word than "God" to describe your sense of awe, all I can really do is recommend that you consult a thesaurus.

The "mystical" force could be Higgs field, multidimensional branes, and so on.

Yes. Of course, if it is any of those things, it isn't nearly as "mystical" is it?

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.

Yes. And isn't it also possible that reality is your own personal delusion?

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?

How about "the unknown?" It's a handy word.

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.

Banana has been freighted ...

... with far too much creationist flim-flammery.

If we must resort to the names of tropical fruit when casting about for suitable euphemisms for the unknown, I'd like to nominate "guava" instead.

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

1+1=2 is subjective?

"If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics." ~ Roger Bacon (from Opus Majus)

 

[Ouroboros]

So when you indicated that something evicts your sense of reverence, I thought it worth the time to ask what you meant by that. Did you really mean to say that God/The Universe evicts your sense of reverence?

Did you mean to say "evoke?"

Dang. Yes. I meant evoke. That's what happens when I rush and don't read through it again.

When it comes to the rest of it, we'll discuss it another day. I don't want to derail this thread any further.

My point is, God is neither simple nor complex, and if someone is trying to prove God, they're only proving thei own views of what they think is God.

--edit

*their own*

 

[Gambit]

I think that God is Truth and Truth is God. The only question is whether that Truth is conscious and self-aware or not. In either case, Truth is pretty complex.

If your conceive of God as not being conscious, then your conception does not qualify as a God-concept.

 

[Gambit]

simply because they're one and the same. Supernatural must be natural, not non-natural. Super just mean more or above. It's natural, but more than natural. Besides, all these "proofs" for God's existence are based on naturalistic reasoning, which means that the result you get is a naturalistic explanation.

You're talking nonsense.

 

[Ouroboros]

You're talking nonsense.

Not really, but I leave you to find out for yourself.

 

[Gambit]

The whole idea puts God in epistemological terminology which is only based on previous believers doing the same, a chain of believers trying to made God, their beliefs, immune to reason. Yet such terms only apply to observed and verified knowledge. So the idea is fallacious itself since all properties of God are asserted only. Thus the whole concept is nonsensical and fallacious. Look up the philosophy of identity.

We come to know God by way of analogy because we are attempting to describe the infinite from a finite perspective.

 

[Gambit]

I would agree with the statement that "God is one" meaning he is one single whole. I am not sure about being "simple" though. I think that under law he gets divided up and becomes infinitely complex very fast.

I'm not sure what law you are referring to, but God is one because his oneness is indivisible.

 

[Gambit]

Been waitin' to say this. . ONTO MY IGNORE LIST YOU GO .
Golly I keep having fun with this! I should make it a game!

Suit yourself.

 

[Gambit]

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?

The source of your confusion is your attempt to anthropomorphize God.

 

[Ouroboros]

The source of your confusion is your attempt to anthropomorphize God.

The "Watchmaker" argument isn't mine. It's used quite often by Christians. It's the attempt to prove that God exists as an anthropomorphic entity. Which makes God complex. Which results in the response from atheists. That's the context of their response.

 

[Gambit]

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.

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.)

Contemporary New Age catchphrases describing God (spatially) as the "Ground of Being" and (temporally) as the "Eternal Now,"[50] in tandem with the view that God is not an entity among entities but rather is "Being-Itself"—notions which Eckhart Tolle, for example, has invoked repeatedly throughout his career[51]—were paradigmatically renovated by Tillich, although of course these ideas derive from Christian mystical sources as well as from ancient and medieval theologians such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.[52][53]
(source: Wikipedia: Paul Tillich)

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.

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

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

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]

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.

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

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.

Science is actually based on induction.

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...

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

 

[Gambit]

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.

I believe God is the most parsimonious explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. In fact, I believe God is the only explanation.

 

[we-live-now]

I'm not sure what law you are referring to, but God is one because his oneness is indivisible.

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.

 

[Gambit]

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

"Physical energy" is not self-explanatory.

 

[Gambit]

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

I'm not "moving goal posts." I attempting to correct a basic misunderstanding that atheists like yourself have.

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?

God is the most parsimonious explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. You have no explanation.

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

Are you saying that you know what "Buddha-nature" is? Or, is this all just metaphysical speculation?