• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God is simple, not complex

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
This is to correct a common misunderstanding that many atheists seem to have, namely, the mistaken belief that God is complex. God is simple, not complex. That's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence - for why there is something rather than nothing.

Is the Truth simple?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The other option is a coincidence, do you think accidents and randomness is the cause of this universe.

I don't really see why existence needs a cause. That the question is asked shows a lot more about human nature than about existence itself, in my opinion.


What makes you to believe that it doesn't need a planner and a designer.

It sure does not look like it was planned. Things such as the spontaneous arisal of acephaelic children all but assure me that existence is not inherently purposeful.


Still you can find out and think of how God did it,

I suppose I can. I probably did it at some point and found the idea too ludicrous to be seriously considered. I don't remember if it was before or after learning that Christians, Muslims and others sometimes propose it seriously.

In any case, at the end of the day there is no way out of the fact that I find the idea of a Creator God both meaningless and pointless.

so your excuse is a meaningless one.

It is not an "excuse" at all, FearGod. I need no excuse. I have no duty to answer or even value your questions about the supposed reason for the existence of the universe.

If I am brutally honest about it, I find it a silly question to ask; just about as pointless as a question can be.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Not everything is written for everyone.

Mainstream views are while fringe views no one thinks is worth the time are not.


Like, the "nature of the strong force", the "nature of the electromagnetic force", etc. Got it.

Yes, which is all your reference work contains with a heavy dose of mysticism. Both explain nothing.


So you can do it and they can't. Got it.

Obviously you didn't get it as I was using the typical theist sophistry and rhetoric when it comes to God but applied to the universe as a parody. You confused a parody for a factual answer. The point of the parody was to show that I can mimic the argument of parsimony with one less assumption, God, by making the "magic" part of the universe itself. This makes the universe the more plausible answer than God in this case. I was also showing the weakness of the Razor when people take an undemonstrated conclusion as it were factual or even valid/sound or even had explanatory power.
 
Last edited:

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
I don't really see why existence needs a cause. That the question is asked shows a lot more about human nature than about existence itself, in my opinion.

Yes it shows more about human nature while the real thing is a supernatural.


It sure does not look like it was planned. Things such as the spontaneous arisal of acephaelic children all but assure me that existence is not inherently purposeful.

If all children were acephalic then that'll be due to a bad luck, but see; we're lucky.


I suppose I can. I probably did it at some point and found the idea too ludicrous to be seriously considered. I don't remember if it was before or after learning that Christians, Muslims and others sometimes propose it seriously.

In any case, at the end of the day there is no way out of the fact that I find the idea of a Creator God both meaningless and pointless.

Life created by the unconscious nature makes more sense.

It is not an "excuse" at all, FearGod. I need no excuse. I have no duty to answer or even value your questions about the supposed reason for the existence of the universe.

If I am brutally honest about it, I find it a silly question to ask; just about as pointless as a question can be.

My point was that believing in God doesn't prevent us from thinking of how it was created in which you
said believing that God did it will prevent us from thinking about the universe and your conclusion is wrong.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
You are of course free to believe in the supernatural, but I see no reason to do that.

Life created by the unconscious nature makes more sense.

Life created accidentally? Yes, I do in fact find that far more likely than life created purposefully by some deity.

My point was that believing in God doesn't prevent us from thinking of how it was created

Oh, sorry then.

You are, of course, correct.

A believer in God's existence can of couse speculate or research cosmology, biology or any other discipline, as well as speculate about pretty much any subject matter.

My point was however that there is no explanatory content in the idea of a creator God.

I'm not even sure how come there are those who disagree about that.


in which you
said believing that God did it will prevent us from thinking about the universe and your conclusion is wrong.

No, it does not prevent it. But it is not helpful either.
 

Reflex

Active Member
I was surfing and came across this forum, but it was was thread that peaked my interest and prompted me to sign-up because the doctrine of divine simplicity fascinates me.

One book that might be of particular interest to the author of the OP is God Without Parts by James E. Dolezal. A book that addresses many atheistic misconceptions is The Experience of God by David Bentely Hart. The latter prompted one atheist reviewer to call it "The one theology book all atheists really should read." Return to the One by Brian Hines elaborates on Plotinus' Enneads, which was instrumental in the development of the DDS.

I do not deny that many theists make the same category error that atheists do. That error makes the concept of God vulnerable to parodies like "Santa" or the "flying spaghetti monster." Extending that criticism to all conceptions of God, however, does nothing more than reveal the critic's ignorance. Therefore, it behooves the atheist to know what idea of God the theist is talking about before engaging in a conversation with the theist.

Another thing I want to address is the apparent confusion regarding the difference between 'complicated' and 'complex.' I may have it backwards, but my understanding is that, generally speaking, something is complicated if the difficulty in its understanding is reducible to distinct but interconnected parts. On the other hand, something that is complex is not necessarily reducible to constituent parts--the weather, for example, or God. The Urantia Book it states, "Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature." (Like the author of the OP, I will quote any source that serves my purpose.) God is absolutely simple because he is without parts. That does not mean that God is not complex, and one should remember that infinite complexity is indistinguishable from chaos.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
The other option is a coincidence, do you think accidents and randomness is the cause of this universe.
What makes you to believe that it doesn't need a planner and a designer.
I fear getting offtrack here, but there are more options than just those two. You can even put them on a sliding scale (more than one, actually). First of all, let's consider what possible alternatives there are to the Universe we know. It may be that the Universe as it is only represents one way that reality could be out of an infinite number of ways. Alternatively, there may have been only a billion different ways that the Universe could have turned out. Or a hundred. Or only two. Finally, it may be that the Universe and its laws are the one and only possible version of reality that can actually exist. Put on a scale, the chances of our Universe being the way it is due to a coincidence can range from:

Practically impossible (infinite possibilities)
Very unlikely (finite, but many possibilities)
Unlikely (less than 50% chance)
Likely (greater than 50% chance)
Inevitable (only one possibility, 100% chance)

And anything in between these options. If the multiverse exists and each universe within the multiverse has different laws, then that would also have an impact on the probability that any one universe would take on the properties that our's has. Take note that this particular scale assumes that there were no guiding processes which resulted in the Universe's properties. When we consider guiding processes or intelligences, we can also plot them on a scale:

Simplest process/simplest intelligence (near zero knowledge)
Simple process/simple intelligence (little knowledge)
Moderately-complex process, moderate intelligence (moderate knowledge)
Very complex process, high intelligence (much knowledge)
Most complex process, greatest intelligence (infinite knowledge)

However, take note that a complex guiding process isn't necessarily also an intelligent one. The processes required to produce tornadoes are the result of the very complex phenomenon of weather, but it isn't intelligent. Likewise, it's possible that some complex, non-intelligent process increased the likelihood of our Universe's existence vs. alternative universes. You can also combine these two scales. For example, without guidance, perhaps our Universe only had a 1 in 5 chance of existing. The presence of some guiding process could then have increased those odds to 4 in 5. If that was true, then one could say that both chance and guidance had a role in creating our Universe. The thing is, we don't know enough about the Universe's origin to say where we are on these sliding scales. We don't know if our Universe is the only possible one or not, nor do we know what processes were involved in its creation (at least not in great detail).
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I was surfing and came across this forum, but it was was thread that peaked my interest and prompted me to sign-up because the doctrine of divine simplicity fascinates me.

One book that might be of particular interest to the author of the OP is God Without Parts by James E. Dolezal. A book that addresses many atheistic misconceptions is The Experience of God by David Bentely Hart. The latter prompted one atheist reviewer to call it "The one theology book all atheists really should read." Return to the One by Brian Hines elaborates on Plotinus' Enneads, which was instrumental in the development of the DDS.

I do not deny that many theists make the same category error that atheists do. That error makes the concept of God vulnerable to parodies like "Santa" or the "flying spaghetti monster." Extending that criticism to all conceptions of God, however, does nothing more than reveal the critic's ignorance. Therefore, it behooves the atheist to know what idea of God the theist is talking about before engaging in a conversation with the theist.

Another thing I want to address is the apparent confusion regarding the difference between 'complicated' and 'complex.' I may have it backwards, but my understanding is that, generally speaking, something is complicated if the difficulty in its understanding is reducible to distinct but interconnected parts. On the other hand, something that is complex is not necessarily reducible to constituent parts--the weather, for example, or God. The Urantia Book it states, "Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature." (Like the author of the OP, I will quote any source that serves my purpose.) God is absolutely simple because he is without parts. That does not mean that God is not complex, and one should remember that infinite complexity is indistinguishable from chaos.
The doctrine itself is well thought and authored by brilliant minds. However, the problem is sale to mainstream often leads to equivocation, as is evidenced by the op (and likely some of the books he/she quoted).

Have you considered that such a complicated solution was created because brilliant minds needed to fit "god" into a workable box once they were given exposure to the likes of Plato and Aristotle?

What is more, the doctrine has been dismantled to its very core. This is why the op has likely made "intuition" so necessary for understanding: Because without "intuition" the doctrine is clearly dismissed. If however we add another means to accept it such as "intuition," then we clear some of the obstacles for it by question begging, and are left only to address how some singular property can act. And to this we dance around saying "FM" (FU**ING MAGIC).

If someone questions this theory of FM, we, then, assert that every theory requires FM, so it is ok.
 

Reflex

Active Member
To say the doctrine has been dismantled to its very core does not mean it has been dismantled.

Let's dispense with "intuition" and discuss what Watts said:

A way of life and thought which denies or ignores the existence of God is bound to end in dissolution and self-contradiction. If this is not sufficiently proved by the state of futility to which Humanism and rationalism have brought us, a state of in humanity and irrationality, all that remains necessary is to reason the matter out. From the standpoint of reason the conclusion that God exists is absolutely unavoidable; to demonstrate this truth was the greatest and perhaps the most permanent achievement of mediaeval philosophy, and in particular of St. Thomas. The only way to escape this conclusion is to deny the validity of reason, which is merely to make argument, philosophy, and almost every form of discussion and thought impossible.

Either the living God is, or he is not. Either the ultimate Reality is alive, conscious and intelligent, or it is not. If it is, then it is what we call God. If it is not, it must be some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it. Nobody has ever been able to suggest a reasonable alternative. To say that Reality is quite beyond thought, and therefore cannot be designated by such small, human terms as “conscious” and “intelligent” is only to say that God is immeasurably greater than man. And the theist will agree that he is infinitely greater. To argue that Reality is not a blind energy but a “living principle,” an “impersonal super-consciousness,” or an “impersonal mind” is merely to play with words and indulge in terminological contradictions. A “living principle” means about as much as a black whiteness, and to speak of an “impersonal mind” is like talking about a circular square. It is the result, of course, of misunderstanding the word “personal” as used of God—as if it meant that God is an organism, form, or composite structure like man, something resembling Haeckel’s “gaseous vertebrate.” But the word is not used at all in that sense. From many points of view the term “personal” is badly chosen, but it means simply that God is alive in the fullest possible way.

If the ultimate Reality is indeed a blind energy or process devoid of inherent meaning, if it is merely an unconscious permutation and oscillation of waves, particles or what not, certain consequences follow. Human consciousness is obviously a part or an effect of this Reality. We are bound, then, to come to one of two conclusions. On the one hand, we shall have to say that the effect, consciousness, is a property lacking to its entire cause—in short, that something has come out of nothing. Or, on the other hand, we shall have to say that consciousness is a special form of unconsciousness—in short, that it is not really conscious. For the first of these two conclusions there neither is nor can be any serious argument; not even a rationalist would maintain the possibility of an effect without a sufficient cause. The main arguments against theism follow, in principle, the second conclusion—that the properties and qualities of human nature, consciousness, reason, meaning, and the like, do not constitute any new element or property over and above the natural and mechanical processes which cause them. Because Reality itself is a blind mechanism, so is man. Meaning, consciousness, and intelligence are purely arbitrary and relative terms given to certain highly complex mechanical structures.

But the argument dissolves itself. If consciousness and intelligence are forms of mechanism, the opinions and judgements of intelligence are products of mechanical (or statistical) necessity. This must apply to all opinions and judgements, for all are equally mere phenomena of the mechanical world-process. There can be no question of one judgement being more true than another, any more than there can be question of the phenomenon fish being more true than the phenomenon bird. But among these phenomena are the judgements of the rationalist, and to them he must apply the logic of his own reasoning. He must admit that they have no more claim to truth than the judgements of the theist, and that if rationalism is true it is very probably not true. This is intellectual suicide—the total destruction of thought—to such a degree that even the rationalist’s own concepts of mechanism, unconscious process, statistical necessity, and the like, also become purely arbitrary and meaningless terms. To hold such a view of the universe consistently, one must separate oneself, the observer, from it. But this cannot be done, for which reason a contemporary philosopher has complained that man’s subjective presence constitutes the greatest obstacle to philosophical knowledge!

Now this is pure nonsense. Man’s subjective presence is, of course, the very condition of knowledge both of the universe and of God. It is precisely the existence of man in the universe as a conscious, reflecting self that makes it logically necessary to believe in God. A universe containing self-conscious beings must have a cause sufficient to produce such beings, a cause which must at least have the property of self-consciousness. This property cannot simply “evolve” from protoplasm or stellar energy, because this would mean that more consciousness is the result of less consciousness and no consciousness. Evolution is, therefore, a transition from the potential to the actual, wherein the new powers and qualities constantly acquired are derived, not from the potential, but from a superior type of life.
Watts was wrong to suppose that not even a rationalist would not maintain the possibility of an effect entirely absent in its cause. Some clearly do believe in "FM." Now, I imagine that someone with the screen name of "Emergence" will argue that emergence is all one needs. But emergence is the process of preexisting conditions: it is "a transition from the potential to the actual, wherein the new powers and qualities constantly acquired are derived, not from the potential, but from a superior type of life." Now, you can argue otherwise, of course, but only at the expense of doing away with reason altogether.

But that is a price atheists seem willing to pay.
 

Gambit

Well-Known Member
I'm not quite sure I understand what that means, but what I get from it is that everything in this Universe is an imitation of His essence.

Everything is a partial imitation of God's essence.

If that's so, then His essence is complex because it would require there to be a representation of everything in this Universe in Himself. At the very least, He would contain multiple concepts, multiple ideas.

God knows every way in which his essence can be (partially) imitated. But this knowledge is not a composite knowledge. Why? Because it is not informed by something external to himself. (Unlike divine knowledge, our knowledge is informed by something external to ourselves and results in a change in our knowledge.)
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Do you, please tell me more.
place yourself in God's position.....yes you can....

having created the Expanse.....you find yourself as the First.....in mind and heart.

you then seek another like yourself and there is none.

forming a reflection is easy....but you are then talking to your own image and echo.

so then you place Spirit into the physical and turn it loose.....

what's so hard about that?
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
place yourself in God's position.....yes you can....

having created the Expanse.....you find yourself as the First.....in mind and heart.

you then seek another like yourself and there is none.

forming a reflection is easy....but you are then talking to your own image and echo.

so then you place Spirit into the physical and turn it loose.....

what's so hard about that?
Well its not my way of trying to describe the indescribable, my way is that we are all One with the Source, call it what ever tickled you, our mind body organism arises from this Source and here we are. So, we are One with the Source, and we are also the body, its all One because there cannot be anything outside of the Source, so you could say that the body is like a shadow of the Source.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Well its not my way of trying to describe the indescribable, my way is that we are all One with the Source, call it what ever tickled you, our mind body organism arises from this Source and here we are. So, we are One with the Source, and we are also the body, its all One because there cannot be anything outside of the Source, so you could say that the body is like a shadow of the Source.
don't believe in the devil?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
This is to correct a common misunderstanding that many atheists seem to have, namely, the mistaken belief that God is complex. God is simple, not complex. That's why God is the most parsimonious explanation for the mystery of existence - for why there is something rather than nothing.

You have absolutely no reliable means of inquiry that would allow you to assert "god is simple", and you have no operational definitions for "simple" and "complex".
 
Top