God is simple, not complex

[prometheus11]

Of course, Carlita.

Perception is always an issue. The person who perceives an imaginary relationship as real don't recognize the imaginary nature of the relationship. And that's why believers are so antagonistic concerning atheism; they're facing the possibility of losing a real relationship to an imaginary one. They're faced with acknowledging that they haven't been having sex with another real individual, they've been having vivid fantasies during masturbation.

The issue is what can be demonstrated as real. The woman who came to take my place was real (or seemed to be) and consequently, was more valuable to me than the ones I knew to be imaginary although an acceptable facsimile without a real relationship to be had.

But, let's assume that all relationships are imaginary. In that case, don't we still value most the ones who seem to be real over those we know to be hallucinations?

Or, consider the mathematician John Nash. By rigorous application of logic, he was able to determine which of his relationships were hallucinations and which were with actual people. Because of this determination and his valuation of real relationships over his hallucinatory relationships, he was able to control his mental illness to an unimaginable degree. His valuation of real relationships over imaginary ones saved his life, his career, his business, his work and etcetera.

Nash's models and work is the foundation for thousands of business deals on Wall Street and in business. Long after his death, his formulas and models are still invaluable and being used by thousands of people right now and every second....all because he valued real relationships over imaginary ones.

That dynamic is why I think real relationships are more important than imaginary ones. And I think experiences with both types and their consequences bear that out.

 

[Reflex]

This is a gem of a quote and I imagine if I were to discuss with watts this subject, he might very well hand me my ***, but leave me unconvinced. However, I would without fail be given much food for thought.

I would suggest that the concept of truth is divorced from "meaning" and these notions, that truth dissolves because judgements are by-products of meaningless mechanical processes, are wrong. Granted, we are limited in our truth inquiry to contingent truth alone. But, not all contingent truths are equal. Rather, we can differentiate among them based on their contingencies. Moreover, if such a world view voids all meaning (though I would argue internal consistency replaces meaning and morality) so be it. That some feel such an outlook is so bleak, as to make and accept god as axiomatic is hardly surprising. But if we are to pursue such a route sans "intuition" let us see where it leads.

I hate to break it to you, but if you deny the actuality of God, Watts does hand you your ***.

Making god, even a divinely simple one, into an axiom is a mistake. If there is a god, acceptance of that truth should derive from easily accepted, simple--if you will-- axioms upon which we are forced to rely. So, do not propose as watts mistakenly does, that lack of god dissolves reasoning. Rather, if you want to make a case, do so with sound reasoning and build from accepted axioms. Chances are you will at best arrive at the Forms, another well thought and well authored argument, as did Plato. But such an argument is only compatible with the abrahamic religion if one is very generous with the mental gymnastics. Thus, it is not the most "parsimonious" explanation.

There are no axiomatic truths; only relationships.

Then God is even more complex than the Universe.

'Simplicity' and 'complexity' "are not ontologically meaningful terms (places or states), they are descriptors, modifiers that facilitate a means of thinking about things." (thank you, Willamena.)

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

No. It was addressed to atheists who sacrifice reason by denying the actuality of God.

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.

It's all about relationship, the relating of a relation relation relating to itself. (Kierkegaard) Don't confuse panentheism with pantheism.

Hindus have a saying: God was alone and became lonely. So he became many.

 

[LuisDantas]

The way I see it, deities can have many interesting attributes.

It turns out that literal existence is not a particularly useful one for them.

 

[Sunstone]

The way I see it, deities can have many interesting attributes.

It turns out that literal existence is not a particularly useful one for them.

Seems rather tacky to insist that our deities must exist in addition to everything else we demand of them.

 

[LuisDantas]

Seems rather tacky to insist that our deities must exist in addition to everything else we demand of them.

I meant no irony, however.

Deities are influential concepts. That is true regardless and more than likely even because they lack either literal existence or the evidence to show for it.

 

[Sunstone]

I meant no irony, however.

Deities are influential concepts. That is true regardless and more than likely even because they lack either literal existence or the evidence to show for it.

I'm quite serious in thinking it's in poor taste to insist your deity exists. I'm not talking about having faith here, but rather making knowledge claims. In the first place, you can't know for certain. In the second place, you should be embarrassed to insist that you possess knowledge which you do not actually possess; that is like claiming an excellence you do not have. In the third place, your company when you claim certain knowledge of deity tends to include an alarming number of con men, frauds, and cheats. Last, there is no need for making such claims other than to inflate your ego, or milk other people of their money.

 

[Reflex]

The way I see it, deities can have many interesting attributes.

It turns out that literal existence is not a particularly useful one for them.

LOL! When it come to God-as-he-is-within-himself, I don't believe you know just how right you are! I don't remember who, but one well-known theologian said it is as atheistic to say God exists and it is to say God doesn't exist. This is consistent with the DDS.

 

[Shad]

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.​

Assertion backed by nothing. Thomas Aquinas's arguments are used in first level philosophy courses to test students in order to evaluate how many holes and fallacies they can spot in an argument. His argument has many objections and has been refuted for centuries. It is also based on per-Newtonian physics in which an object is believed to be at rest while modern physics show all objects are in a state of movement since all motion is relative.

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.

Nonsense. Consciousness is only observed in relation to an object having a brain. One could easily put forward the brain is the cause of consciousness thus the counter-argument "from nothing" is refuted.

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.

Nonsense and equivocation fallacy.

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.

QM has countered this priori.

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.

Argument from emotion. Watts does not like the idea of having no special purpose so objects on this ground alone yet would be perfectly fine with non-sentient objects having no purpose Nature is not capable of forming it's own thought as a object while humans are. We are not blind like nature.

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.

Nonsense. Opinions and judgements can be evaluated based on the justification which forms the basis of each. The comparison is flawed since it is treating a judgement, subjectivity, as if it was comparable to fish and bird which are objective. Watts is oblivious to the idea of justification when it helps his justification based argument....

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.

Justification and evaluation of it can show how one individuals view has morevalue than another.

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!

Nonsense since Watts is dismissing justification when it suits him and uses it when it help him. Watts is intellectual dishonest and uses arguments from emotion after discarding justification.

Now this is pure nonsense. Man’s subjective presence is, of course, the very condition of knowledge both of the universe and of God.

Assumption and begging the question

It is precisely the existence of man in the universe as a conscious, reflecting self that makes it logically necessary to believe in God.[/quote]

Assumption and begging the question

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.

Assumption and special pleading by structuring the argument as "within the universe" thus using principles and laws which are within it to argue the cause is outside the universe. Once you detach an object from the universe you can not invoke these same principles of cause and effect at a whim without subjecting the external object

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.

Assumption and begging the question
​

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.

Repeating the same nonsense as Watts does nothing to help your argument.

 

[Quintessence]

I would be shocked if anyone were to have a different reaction.

That's not an atypical reaction when someone runs into cultures and people that are very different than what they are accustomed to. It reflects more on the person having the reaction than the thing they are reacting to. I'm shocked people in my country get so religious about football... which basically just speaks to how little I value that sport.

And I'm shocked that you don't place relationships with real beings over imaginary relationships.

That's not what I said. I said I'm not going to condemn someone based on how they choose to manage their relationships. It's their business, not mine. That, and when I look at what people actually do, it's pretty apparent to me that it is common for people to place their relations with things that are not of the apparent world "above" those of this world. Again - the lines for the new Star Wars film. Seriously. All to experience one of the otherworlds... and some of these people to time off from their this-worldly responsibilities (like their job) to do this. You probably do it too, you just use different terminology to describe it.

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

You're missing the point, but I don't think I'm going to be able to help you understand. You, like most in my culture, have a... well, I'll just call it a very strange way of regarding the apparent world and the otherworlds. In spite of the fact my culture routinely engages with the otherworlds through story, art, and song, it'll offhandedly dismiss its value and obsess over nonsense like "proof" even though it has a massive influence on their day-to-day lives.

Perception is always an issue. The person who perceives an imaginary relationship as real don't recognize the imaginary nature of the relationship.

I'd just like to point out that this is not the case. When I work with the otherworlds in any capacity, I am quite aware that I'm working with the otherworlds and not something in the apparent world.

 

[prometheus11]

"Otherworldly" simply means "not within this planet." Jupiter is "otherworldly" but it's real. It's watering down the label "imaginary." Otherworldly doesn't tell the whole story.

I'm not dismissing anything, by the way. I'm saying that there is a difference in quality. As per my real life example about my job that was in isolation. Imagination is great, and it helps in its way. Nobody is knocking it except to say that there's an important difference (again, my example from my own life and finally being able to converse with a real person instead of plants and equipment).

As with Nash taking control of his life and his mental illness, it seems quite valuable to discern between what is born of the imagination and what exists independent of my imagination.

...........


As a side note, would you consider it rude of me to tell you that "you're missing THE point (as if it weren't simply MY point), but I don't think I'm going to be able to help you with that" and to claim that "you [...] have a very strange way of regarding the apparent world and reality versus imaginary things?"

I ask you because I would consider it arrogant for me to act as if my point from my perspective were THE point and that you have a strange way of looking at things. And I would be afraid to express that to another member, here.

 

[prometheus11]

Wrong. Perception is ALWAYS an issue. We lock people up in hospitals if their perception is strong enough that they perceive an imaginary being as real.

That you are able to correctly perceive imaginary things as imaginary and real things as real is proof that your perception is operating within normal limits.

If you perceived leather jackets as fire breathing dragons, society would try to help you correct your perception.

 

[Reflex]

Sorry, Shad, but Watts handed you your ***. In making your case, you are rejecting reason and invoking the magic of an effect entirely absent in its cause (not to mention misrepresenting QM).

 

[prometheus11]

Sorry, Shad, but Watts handed you your ***. In making your case, you are rejecting reason and invoking the magic of an effect entirely absent in its cause (not to mention misrepresenting QM).

I don't understand how this comment moves the debate forward.

Perhaps you don't see reason in Shads response, but I do, and I am very, very glad he posted it and I had the opportunity to read it!

I enjoy Watts and even use some of his opinions in my professional career as another consideration to evaluate, but his realm is the "touchy-feely" variety. He's not a logical authority on God.

 

[Quintessence]

"Otherworldly" simply means "not within this planet."

That may be one usage of the term, but that's not how I'm using the term. By "otherworlds" I mean aspects of reality that are not part of the apparent world, or what is sometimes called the "objective" reality, or the "tangible" or "empirical" reality. I use the "otherworlds" specifically to refer to dimensions of reality that are often disregarded in my culture as "not real" or "imaginary." The Star Wars universe is one otherworld, so is the universe of the Lord of the Rings, the realms some Christians call heaven and hell are otherworlds, and things like the faery land described in Celtic mythos are otherworlds. Use words like "multiverse" or "parallel dimension or "alternate reality" if it appeals to you better. Same basic concept.

Understand that I do not call anything "not real." Something is either part of the apparent world or one of the otherworlds. I define both of these as real. I experience both of these realms meaningfully, and they have powerful impacts on me and my culture. Given that, I don't see why I should regard them as anything other than real, or as serious dimensions of reality we can relate to and explore. It's bizarre to me that people in my own culture do routinely interact with the otherworlds and yet still call it "not real." I don't get that. If you're a Star Wars fan, why on earth would you take any of that seriously if it is not real to you? Makes no sense to me.

Does that help you understand where I'm coming from here?

Wrong. Perception is ALWAYS an issue. We lock people up in hospitals if their perception is strong enough that they perceive an imaginary being as real.

I've never personally know anybody who has been locked up for taking the otherworlds seriously as a dimension of reality. And even supposing that we did, this is more a commentary on the norms of the culture doing the witch hunt than anything else. How a culture goes about defining its reality box says quite a lot about it...

 

[prometheus11]

I understand how you are using the term, yes. I do not agree with that term being used in that way. I think that there are much better ways to discuss those dynamics then the term "otherworldly."

I understand that you do not personally know people who have been put into a mental health facility for believing they have relationships with beings that cannot be proven to exist, but certainly you recognize that these scenarios occur. When a person claims to be in constant communication with Elvis's ghost we help them medically. When a person claims to be in constant communication with Jesus, we help them build a mega church.

It seems to me that society (and individuals) do a great service in pointing out those relationships and beings which cannot be proved as more than flights of the imagination. And I see Nash's life as evidence of this.

 

[Reflex]

I don't understand how this comment moves the debate forward.

Perhaps you don't see reason in Shads response, but I do, and I am very, very glad he posted it and I had the opportunity to read it!

I enjoy Watts and even use some of his opinions in my professional career as another consideration to evaluate, but his realm is the "touchy-feely" variety. He's not a logical authority on God.

It's not meant to move the "debate" regarding the actuality of God forward. That's not the topic of this thread and that's why I didn't elaborate on Shad's misrepresentation of QM.

As a stand-alone concept, divine simplicity is a hypothetical state of Ultimate (or “Original,” if you so prefer) Reality and, in the absence of otherness, is indeed quite meaningless. The absoluteness of God's will, however, makes possible the Act of “self-othering.” In other words, what we call "reality" is now, has always been, and will always be comprised of a vast hierarchy qualitative variations of the same thing. "No thing or being, no relativity or finality, exists except in direct or indirect relation to, and dependence on, the primacy of the First Source and Center." (UB)

 

[Parsimony]

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



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.)





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

Okay, can you demonstrate that such a thing as "knowledge that is whole without parts" even exists? Show me an example of this in real life (and not hypothetical metaphysics stuff either). Even Dr. Craig is saying that things like ideas can be complex, which entails that any mind which has ideas would add the complexity of those ideas onto itself. His claim that the mind is simple is itself suspect. If he assumes that a mind is conscious awareness and nothing more, then that might actually make sense. Once you start giving this mind other attributes, however, such as reasoning and memory, you add to its complexity. It is not as simple as it was when it was purely consciousness, so it becomes more complex as it gains more abilities.

 

[psychoslice]

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.

Na, cannot swallow any of that, but thanks.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

How do you know this? You have simply made an assertion.

I read the link, but it isn't satisfying at all. It spends a lot of time trying to say what god is NOT. It does not matter to me what god is NOT, my question is what IS god, then? How and in what way does it exist?

 

[Thief]

Na, cannot swallow any of that, but thanks.

and in the hour of your last breath.....what lays ahead of you?