God is simple, not complex.

[Willamena]

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.)

In what way is "divine simplicity" simple, other than in name? It proposes a god without parts, a god whose being is not distinct from its properties, which in itself is as complex as properties are. If we intuit infinite predicates, we can intuit infinite parts.

 

[Gambit]

So you are saying God/Brahman is pure sat-chit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss) and not that He is a being that has these attributes. I like this a lot, Gambit. Mind-challenging. Explains why many eastern masters say 'God is pure being-awareness-bliss' rather than 'God has the attributes of being, awareness and bliss. Things are making more sense. Thanks.

You basically got it. God's essence is existence (being) itself. And each of the divine attributes are ontologically identical with his existence and with each other.

The divine sat is always also the divine chit, and their perfect coincidence is the divine ananda. (source: pg. 248, "The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss" by David Bentley Hart)

 

[Gambit]

Atheist understand god as nothing. Whether god is simple or complex is irrelevant.

I suspect many atheists have this basic misunderstanding that God is complex because they're taking their cues from Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient or omnipotent God must be extremely complex

(source: Wikipedia: The God Delusion)

 

[Sha'irullah]

I suspect many atheists have this basic misunderstanding that God is complex because they're taking their cues from Richard Dawkins.

This is not true in the slightest bit. Go to an atheist forum and witness the dislike towards Dawkins. Dawkins is not the authority on atheism and what you are doing is essentially creating a false situation

 

[Gambit]

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Atheists basically attack a "straw man" God.

Which one strikes you are more parsimonious?

A.) The Universe happened.
B.) The Universe happened because of God.

The first explains nothing although some prominent atheist physicists (Krauss and Hawking) have attempted to argue that the universe will spontaneously create itself from nothing.

 

[Gambit]

I like to think that "God" is unknowable and all efforts to explain this entity are simply opinions.

Sounds like you're an agnostic.

 

[Gambit]

If a God is the one that created the universe then by definition "He" was in scientific terms, obviously, the "Big Bang", as the universe is recognized as originating from this structure. ("His" voice still radiates at 4 degrees Kelvin!).

The "Big Bang" is not a "structure."

By the way, the metaphysical doctrine of creation is something that is happening right now.

 

[Parsimony]

If God is omniscience, then His mind contains an infinite amount of information (He would know all of the numbers as well as all of the answers to all possible equations). His mind (and therefore Him as a whole) would contain an infinite number of bits and would therefore be infinitely complex. How can something/someone without parts of any kind contain any information (or at least more than 1 bit of information)?

 

[Shad]

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.)

Merely defining God as simple is meaningless especially when attempting to answer any question regarding the mechanics behind God and creation. By identifying God as identical to his properties the concept of God becomes nonsensical. No more than identifying a person as human by morally good or tall.

 

[AllanV]

If God is omniscience, then His mind contains an infinite amount of information (He would know all of the numbers as well as all of the answers to all possible equations). His mind (and therefore Him as a whole) would contain an infinite number of bits and would therefore be infinitely complex. How can something/someone without parts of any kind contain any information (or at least more than 1 bit of information)?

It could be in the light, quantum storage.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, maybe you should start. You might learn something

Haha. Personal preference.

Simple, not simplistic.

What's the difference?

I don't know what you mean.

What (noun?) that is keeping you alive, talking, running your organs. What's behind the energy that functions what you are. What is behind all the psychology makeup that makes you what you believe. What drives both of these together with motivation to at its very least purpose, to live--that is life.

That life is God. (Using God since it's widely associated with the source of all that exist) I am saying it IS all that exists. With no life anywhere, nothing and no one would exist.

 

[wgw]

The Eastern Orthodox Church positively rejects the doctrine of absolute divine simplicity and instead believes God in his essence is utterly incomprehensible and unknowable. Only his energies, such as love and grace, the visible manifestations of the Holy Spirit, the audible manifestations of the Father, and the incarnation of Jesus Cheost, and the real presence of Christ during the Eucharist, can be known. But the essence of God is utterly incomprehensible because God is infinite. How does a finite being comprehend the infinte? St. Gregory of Nazianzus held that such an attempt would lead to madness, and I am fairly certain he was right. Just think of how terrifying the idea of the eternal is. You can't begin to understand an entity that created the universe but "pre-existed it" because outside the universe categories like time and existence lose meaning. God is utterly incomprehensible to a finite being. It is also perhaps preposterous to think we can dare to understand God when most of us cannot understand ourselves.

Orthodox Christians and Atheists can agree on a number of points:
- Most Orthodox interpret the Old Testament allegorically and I would say only a minority are hardcore creationists.
- Orthodoxy says if you have a minor religious experience like a warm fuzzy feeling in church, it's probably in your head. One can fall into prelest (religious delusion) as a result of psycho somatic autosuggestion.
-The existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.
-Most fundamentalists are not Biblically literate.
- Furthermore, most fundamentalists do not understand the history or dogma of the early church. If they did, they would probably be Mormons or Baha'is or Unitarians. Jesus placed formidable demands on his followers and the Prosperity Gospel of Joel Olsteen and his ilk is rubbish.

We do believe that our faith can be proven in this life but only by years of monastic toil that no atheist would wish to endure (or find fruitful). The venerable monks on Mount Athos and in the Egyptian deserts are something special though, I will give you that.

However most Orthodox do resent atheism a bit due to the communist persecutions.

 

[Gambit]

That's a good point. However, I don't see how purpose or intent is something simple. For a supreme supernatural being to having a purpose or intent for this universe, it would require thoughts, wouldn't it?

God has only one ultimate end, namely, himself. So, he only has one single act of will. In fact, God is identical with his will.

Here's the thing. If God is simple and not complex, then the ultimate nature of God would have to be the absolute simplest, which is nothing.

God is being itself. Nothing does not exist (by definition). That being said, you do raise an interesting point - a point that was recognized by Hegel and expressed in his dialectic.

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts). When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one's living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.[39]

(source: Wikipedia: Dialectic)

Nothing is the first simplicity of all things. Set theory starts with the empty set. The origin of an axis is zero. And so on. Do you agree with this or can you explain it further if you're not?

I'm not a mathematician. But, as far as I know, Cantor (inventor of set theory) identified the "Absolute Infinite" with God.

The cool thing with a simple God is that it fits with science though. It starts at the quantum level (or lower), and physics is built from that. Life started at simple metabolic systems without cells, and later more complex structures came about. It all fits with pantheism actually. The simple beginning, leading to this complex world.

The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) is the reason God qualifies as the ultimate explanation.

The DDS [is] in response to the...philosophical quest for a single ultimate principle by which to account for...the unity that lies back of all multiplicity. (source: pg. 3, "God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness" by James E. Dolezal)

 

[wgw]

God has only one ultimate end, namely, himself. So, he only has one single act of will. In fact, God is identical with his will.

With all due respect, how do you know that? The entire Scholastic theory of ADS is just a philosophical artifice based on speculation but without any existential proof. I could sit here and tell you that God is a potato (as I heard some hippie wannabe priest did in a Lutheran seminary in the 1970s).

But in both cases we are ignoring the fundamental dilemma: how can a finite being possibly comprehend an infinte being that exists outside of time and space? It's like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle on a macro scale. You can't measure the Creator from with Creation; you can only, if you are blessed, discern his energies or operations.

 

[Ouroboros]

God has only one ultimate end, namely, himself. So, he only has one single act of will. In fact, God is identical with his will.

So "will" is the most simply thing?

God is being itself. Nothing does not exist (by definition). That being said, you do raise an interesting point - a point that was recognized by Hegel and expressed in his dialectic.

It is the simplest thing.

I'm not a mathematician. But, as far as I know, Cantor (inventor of set theory) identified the "Absolute Infinite" with God.

Absolute infinite isn't the simplest, but the collection of all complexity.

Another point to make here, the reason why atheists claim God must be more complex is because of some arguments that this world is so complex that it has to have a creator. That argument suggests that God must be more complex, not simpler.

 

[Looncall]

You basically got it. God's essence is existence (being) itself. And each of the divine attributes are ontologically identical with his existence and with each other.

Word salad. Deepities.

 

[Looncall]

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.)

Sure god is simple. Not existing is as simple as it gets.

 

[Parsimony]

It could be in the light, quantum storage.

Even if it is, infinite information storage still requires infinite complexity.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here's one more confusion I have.

This "God is simple" concept sounds very offensive to the Swiss. After all, the watchmakers in the old days were skillful and created some very complex machines because of their intelligence and ability to construct these things, not just the will, we're here saying that God, the Watchmaker in the sky, is a simpleton.

Maybe the argument should go like this? Why are there watches instead of no time? It's explained by the Swiss simpletons having the will to do so.

 

[Trolle]

Sounds like you're an agnostic.

Not at all. I believe in a creator/higher intelligence but I don't know exactly what he/she/it is.