God is simple, not complex

[Thief]

Now see your making what is simple into a nightmare, no I personally don't believe in all that rubbish, I have my way of seeing what is, you have your way, no need to think one is right and the other is wrong, that's just being childish.

I have spiritual dreams now and then.
it's not all pretty.

I would not...and do not.....assume all is roses and wheat in the next life.

I DO assume that communication is of mind and heart.
here in this life we post and read....
if closer we speak and listen....

in the next life your dreams and feelings are naked.
and your interaction will be of the most intimate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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".

Whatever definitions he uses should tie back to the argument from design, since this thread is about a response to this argument.

... and in that context, the claim that God is "simple" doesn't help at all. It's not as if elegantly perfect designs need designers less than cobbled-together collections of parts do.

There's a reason why we developed body-on-frame cars before arguably "simpler" (in terms of number of parts) monocoque designs (where the body IS the frame and carries the car's structural loads).

 

[Gambit]

If you really don't know, I'd be happy to go on. Not to put too fine a point to it, but someone who'd posted ~2500 messages here yet didn't know that, would appear to have the primary objective of being intentionally obtuse and spreading obfuscation.

What these terms mean to me might not be what they mean to you. That's why I am asking you to clarify.

 

[Gambit]

As I said, the DDS fascinates me. I think the understanding of innate knowledge, of "I am-ness," is progressive and can never be more than relative to the Actual. That is what we're actually talking about, isn't it?

Yes, God is the actual. Or, to be more specific - pure act or pure actuality (actus purus).

 

[Parsimony]

Everything is a partial imitation of God's essence.

Then God is even more complex than the Universe.

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.)

I don't see how that makes any difference. How one knows something doesn't change what that knowledge actually is. Anything with many properties is more complex than something with few properties, and this is true whether those properties are something it obtained externally or are intrinsic to itself. If God has infinite knowledge, then He is more complex than anything with finite knowledge.

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.

My screen name of Emergence is a reference to the emergence of new traits as gained through biological evolution and says nothing to my views on the Universe's origin.

But that is a price atheists seem willing to pay.

Was this addressed to me? I'm not an atheist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The child isn't going to see a distinction, at least initially. They don't learn that until they get older. Then, they are taught by society to create their wall between "real" and "not real" in a particular way though their culture. Even though both God and Santa are otherworldly, they accept one of those otherworldly things and reject the other. Personally, I think this makes no sense at all. I call both real - both entities that clearly exist in the otherworlds and have a powerful influence on the apparent world - and be done with it.

I'm not following you here. It seems to me that both "God" and "Santa" are actually just figments of the child's imagination. They are only "real" to the child while the child continues to believe in them.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is all in the relationship. It can be very meaningful regardless of matters of independent existance of the object of reverence and devotion.

(Well, that is how I understand Quintessence's stance, anyway)

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not following you here. It seems to me that both "God" and "Santa" are actually just figments of the child's imagination. They are only "real" to the child while the child continues to believe in them.

Even if what you say is the case, why does that matter? It seems very obvious to me that "just figments" of someone's "imagination" can not only be shared by multiple people, but have a very powerful impact on people's lives. That we're even sitting here talking about these two entities is proof of that. Why is it that we have this tendency to stop taking something seriously just because it is otherworldly, or what most call "imaginary?" That seems very unwise, in addition to being painfully boring.

 

[prometheus11]

Quint, your argument is that a relationship with an imaginary being can be just as powerful as a relationship with a real being. Fine.

But don't you also admit that there is a huge difference in the quality of a relationship with an imaginary bring versus a real being?

A person in relationship with an imaginary being is in relationship with suppositions. In a real relationship, the being is separate from the mind of the other UNLIKE the imaginary relationship.

To me, it's a bit like saying that masturbation is real, genuine sex with another person with agency. I would liken the imaginary relationship to masturbation and the real relationship to sex with another person with their own, separate motives and beliefs and desires.

 

[Gambit]

I don't see how that makes any difference. How one knows something doesn't change what that knowledge actually is. Anything with many properties is more complex than something with few properties, and this is true whether those properties are something it obtained externally or are intrinsic to itself. If God has infinite knowledge, then He is more complex than anything with finite knowledge.

To begin with, I think I should define the terms "simple" and "complex" as I have employed them in the context of this thread.

simple : having few parts

complex : having parts that connect or go together in complicated ways

(source: Merriam-Webster)

The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) holds that God is simple because "God is without parts."

The difference between God's knowledge and our knowledge is paramount. God's knowledge is simple because, though he knows many things, he does not know them through multiple intelligible species or forms (or bits of "information" in more contemporary terms), but rather through his own nature as imitable. Human knowledge is complex because we obtain our knowledge through multiple intelligible species or forms. God's knowledge is holistic (whole without parts). Our's is reductionistic (fragmented and broken down into parts). (You seem to understand God's intellect as engaging in discursive reasoning. This is a very anthropomorphic way of understanding the divine intellect.)

"Since God is pure act, nothing other than his own essence actualizes his intellect as the first principle of understanding. Thus, there can be only one such principle. Since that essence is imitable in a variety of ways, however, God can have many ideas as the termini of his act of understanding. In this way, his unity is not compromised, for even though these ideas constitute a multiplicity of things that he understands, the medium by which he understands them is the one divine essence. In short, the multiplicity of the divine ideas is a logical multiplicity, not a real one." (Gregory Doolan, p. 159, "Is Thomas's Doctrine of Divine Ideas Thomistic?" printed in "God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness" by James E. Dolezal)

Then God is even more complex than the Universe

This short YouTube video by Dr. William Lane Craig addresses this very issue.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Even if what you say is the case, why does that matter?

It matters if one is concerned about distinguishing the real from the imaginary.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

God is "isness" or being itself. That's as simple as it gets. (Atheists perceive "being" as "nothingness.")

This seems to be a very pervasive claim, that God is, literally, everything. He/it is just there, everywhere, in everything, always. Some attribute a consciousness of some form to this "it", some claim not to, but do anyway, and I feel that many people also use this explanation to overcome criticisms as to the rationality behind their beliefs. If God is simply "the universe" in total, then why call it anything other than the word we already have to describe that thing? "The Universe". Why call it "God"? Why worship? Why call out to it with any expectation of a response? Do you live in a universe different from the one I inhabit? Because, let me tell you, I've tried some of those things - and there is ZERO RETURN on investment.

 

[Quintessence]

It matters if one is concerned about distinguishing the real from the imaginary.

I think for most of us, it's pretty darned obvious what exists in the apparent world and what exists in the otherworlds, even though the veil between them is paper-thin and easily brushed aside with a gentle breeze or the wave of a hand. I don't see this as a major point worth fussing about. Fussing over this feels to me the equivalent of fussing over exactly what shade of green my car is... with respect to my car's function, the exact hue, saturation, and value is pretty irrelevant.

It seems to me what creates the most problems are people refusing to take something seriously or consider it valuable because it doesn't exist in the apparent world. If we as a culture were better at recognizing the value and the relationships we have with the otherworldly, there might be a good number fewer arguments. It'd also help if we quit referring to the otherworldly as if it is somehow not real.

 

[prometheus11]

Quint, did you see my post (230) above?

Would you say there is equal value in a child's relationship with an imaginary friend and his relationship with an actual person?

 

[Quintessence]

Quint, did you see my post (230) above?

Would you say there is equal value in a child's relationship with an imaginary friend and his relationship with an actual person?

Although I don't agree with the language you use to frame this, I thought I already responded to that way back here?

As for ranking relationships... it's a complicated question and different people and cultures go about that in different ways. Certainly we can say that not all relationships are the same, but thinking of it in a hierarchical fashion is... well, it's not really my thing at least. It's certainly popular to do that in my culture, though. For me it is more of a time invested aspect. What is it that you really devote your time and energy to? Those are one's gods, spoken or unspoken. It's why I sometimes flippantly remark that the "true god" of the American people is the Spirit of Money given how much time and devotion we spend trying to obtain this thing called "money."

It's worth nothing that it is taboo in our culture to prioritize otherworldly relations over those of the apparent world. So much so that it can be characterized as a mental illness in certain situations. When one spends a lot of time doing journeywork (fancy name for "using your imagination" I guess), there's a balance to be struck between the joyful play and being grounded in the apparent world. It can become addictive like most things, I guess.

It's not my place to assess the value of someone else's relationships. Each to their own. Personally, I would never condemn someone for having deeply-held relationships with the people, creatures, and landscapes of the otherworlds. You know all those people waiting in long lines for the new Star Wars film? It would mean condemning all of those people, just as an example. This also brings up a salient point - people in the apparent world often share deep experiences with the otherworldly landscapes together, too. That's really what binds certain communities together.

 

[Willamena]

Real and imaginary are not ontologically meaningful terms (places or states), they are descriptors, modifiers that facilitate a means of thinking about things.

Things exist.

 

[prometheus11]

Quint, I won't respond any more on the subject, and I don't expect you to do so.

I think everyone evaluates relationships and most people value relationships with actual people over imaginary relationships.

A few years back I had a very lonely job collecting samples and cataloging them. I was by myself for weeks at a time. It took less than 48 hours before I started "relationships" with some of the equipment and other items that were always around. A week into the job, a few of those relationships had "blossomed" into full conversations and irrational ideas of the objects and fantasies having their own feelings and drives and perspectives.

But believe me, I wanted contact with a REAL person!! When my replacement came I wanted to know everything about her...anything...everything....whatever. Because unlike the plants and my equipment, she was REAL.

I would be shocked if anyone were to have a different reaction. And I'm shocked that you don't place relationships with real beings over imaginary relationships.

Terms like "otherworldly" give undue legitimacy to beings that can't be proven to be more than imaginary.

Movies like "Moon" and "Lars and the Real Girl" show some of this valuation. And I think most people see the sense in calling masturbation unequal to sex with a person who chooses to engage in the act with you. I can't call maturation sex, and I can't call an imaginary relationship a real relationship since it isn't. The person in the imaginary relationship might value that relationship more than their real relationships, but that doesn't mean it has the same quality and qualities as a real relationship where the other party has agency apart from the inside of the imaginer's mind.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hardly, although I appreciate the effort.

What people call "God" are much more relatable sets of hopes, fears and expectations.

Thats a pretty simple definition while believers may make god more mysterious, is he an entity or not, is he a force or being, is he mind, is he a he or she, is he above or below.

Believers have been defining god not god himself. So how can we know he is simple if we are basing our knowledge of him lf of human understanding and not god himself?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Quint, I won't respond any more on the subject, and I don't expect you to do so.

I think everyone evaluates relationships and most people value relationships with actual people over imaginary relationships.

A few years back I had a very lonely job collecting samples and cataloging them. I was by myself for weeks at a time. It took less than 48 hours before I started "relationships" with some of the equipment and other items that were always around. A week into the job, a few of those relationships had "blossomed" into full conversations and irrational ideas of the objects and fantasies having their own feelings and drives and perspectives.

But believe me, I wanted contact with a REAL person!! When my replacement came I wanted to know everything about her...anything...everything....whatever. Because unlike the plants and my equipment, she was REAL.

I would be shocked if anyone were to have a different reaction. And I'm shocked that you don't place relationships with real beings over imaginary relationships.

Terms like "otherworldly" give undue legitimacy to beings that can't be proven to be more than imaginary.

Movies like "Moon" and "Lars and the Real Girl" show some of this valuation. And I think most people see the sense in calling masturbation unequal to sex with a person who chooses to engage in the act with you. I can't call maturation sex, and I can't call an imaginary relationship a real relationship since it isn't. The person in the imaginary relationship might value that relationship more than their real relationships, but that doesn't mean it has the same quality and qualities as a real relationship where the other party has agency apart from the inside of the imaginer's mind.

I agree 100% what you say. Wouldnt you say god is real to a believer Just the Same as that woman was real to you? Not an imaginary entity; hence the posibility of relationship?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thinks about her Imaginary Finger Analogy.

The value of an donated or artificial finger may be fine. There is nothing wrong with that.

Id rather have a real finger. Unless I never knew there were such things as real fingers.

Just thinking of the sub-debate over values shared with others who believe in imaginary friends. The value of this relationship with the imginary is fine. Wouldnt it be grand to have a relationship with a real person?

If you knew one actually existed?