God is simple, not complex

[FearGod]

More like "it would have to be something better defined and less psychological than God to be an actual answer".

And that thing which should be better defined, do you think it posses some intelligent or an inanimate kind of matter.
How you may define it away of any psychological effect ?

 

[Gambit]

You are mistaken.

I assume you reached that conclusion when it was pointed out that there is no compelling reason to assume that there must have been a Creator God.

I assume that many atheists are parroting an argument that Professor Dawkins (evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist) made in his book "The God Delusion." In that book, he argued that science attempts to explain the complex by reducing it to the simple. He continued to argue that God cannot qualify as an explanation for anything because God himself is complex and therefore requires an explanation for his own complexity. But Professor Dawkins apparently has a basic theological misunderstanding: God is without parts and therefore simple, not complex.

But it is not that atheists usually think of God as complex. We think of him as non-existent.

Also, God is not a parsimonoius explanation, because he is no explanation at all.

God is not only the most parsimonious explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, God is the only explanation. (It should be noted that atheists have no explanation whatsoever for the mystery of existence other than to co-opt the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo - minus God.)

 

[FearGod]

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.

I agree, God doesn't necessarily be a complex.
Humans made rockets and they can't travel as fast the rockets do, just one example of many.

 

[Gambit]

The reason that a god is complex and not simple is because what religious adherents are calling God / Deity are the multitudinous processes of the objective universe and its labyrinth of laws and dimensions.

Classical theology does not teach this.

 

[Gambit]

I think you've said before that you're not a Christian, so what attributes do you give to God? Do you think He is omnipotent? Omnipresent? Omniscient?

I'm not a Christian, but I basically accept that philosophical theology that has developed in the Christian tradition. All three of the Abrahamic faiths accept the doctrine of divine simplicity.

 

[Gambit]

It should be noted that Gambit hardly speaks for all theists. Not all theists make their gods into "creator gods" that explain existence, and "complexity" is a highly relative assessment. Thank you.

I'm speaking for monotheism, not polytheism. (We can summarily dismiss polytheism because it violates the principle of parsimony. It really is that simple.)

 

[Gambit]

So... you're a big fan of that book?

I quote from many different sources, when I deem it appropriate.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm speaking for monotheism, not polytheism. (We can summarily dismiss polytheism because it violates the principle of parsimony. It really is that simple.)

Parsimony? Polytheism is basically a type of animism (just that the Gods are a really powerful class of Spirits) that views Divinity as being immanent in the world and a multiplicity that forms an order, even while seemingly in conflict.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Classical theology understands God to be without parts and thus simple. I provided a link in the OP which explains the doctrine of divine simplicity in more detail. I suggest you read it.

A mystery is complicated. Once solved, it is no longer complicated. This is just basic foundation. Philosophy, theology, and complicated theories aside.

 

[Tumah]

Mm. Think its the other way around. Believers see him as "mysterious; cant be understood; beyond mere human knowledge; not like us; and so forth" thats making god complex.

That's not making G-d complex. That just means that we are too complex to perceive Ultimate Simplicity. Simplicity in this context doesn't mean "easy to understand".

 

[Gambit]

Parsimony? Polytheism is basically a type of animism (just that the Gods are a really powerful class of Spirits) that views Divinity as being immanent in the world and a multiplicity that forms an order, even while seemingly in conflict.

"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." - William of Ockham

We only need to posit one God to explain why there is something rather than nothing. So, why posit many gods, when one will do?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." - William of Ockham

Why posit many gods, when one will do?

If you're going to go that (stupid) route, you might as well say we're all "one consciousness" and there's no such thing as individuality, some Advaita silliness.

 

[Shad]

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.

Calling something simple does not make it simple. The complexity atheists are talking about is an entity that is self-sustaining, able to create anything at will, etc. All which theist refuse or are unable explain besides references the flawed attributes tacked on to God based on assumptions rather than observations. God is not the best explanation since theists explain nothing regarding the mechanics and methods involved which is the point of an explanation. Theist invoke nothing more than "magic" when it comes to any details. Magic becomes the placeholder of actual methods and mechanics that every other explanation provides. Thus is not the most parsimonious explanation. String theory at the very least has some math behind it. God has nothing.

 

[Gambit]

A mystery is complicated. Once solved, it is no longer complicated. This is just basic foundation. Philosophy, theology, and complicated theories aside.

You will not fully grasp divine simplicity with the analytical mind (ego).

"Complexity is of the ego, and is nothing more than the ego's attempt to obscure the obvious." - A Course in Miracles

 

[Gambit]

If you're going to go that (stupid) route, you might as well say we're all "one consciousness" and there's no such thing as individuality, some Advaita silliness.

"Wherever there is a many possessing some one real common property, there must be some one ultimate source for what the many hold in common: for it cannot be because things are many (not one) that they share something one." - St. Thomas Aquinas

Vedantists call this ultimate source Brahman or "being, consciousness, bliss" (or "sat-chit-ananada" in Sanskrit). Thomists call this ultimate source God or "being itself" (or ipsum esse in Latin).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's not making G-d complex. That just means that we are too complex to perceive Ultimate Simplicity. Simplicity in this context doesn't mean "easy to understand".

That would mean everyone who says that they are two limited to understand god are literally talking about themselves rather than implying that god is too complicated for a human being to even know; hence, why they are limited?

What is simple that can not be understood? You have me piqued here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Wherever there is a many possessing some one real common property, there must be some one ultimate source for what the many hold in common: for it cannot be because things are many (not one) that they share something one." - St. Thomas Aquinas

Vedantists call this ultimate source Brahman or "being, consciousness, bliss" (or "sat-chit-ananada" in Sanskrit). Thomists call this ultimate source God or "being itself" (or ipsum esse in Latin).

Oh, I see that you are an Advaitist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You will not fully grasp divine simplicity with the analytical mind (ego).

"Complexity is of the ego, and is nothing more than the ego's attempt to obscure the obvious." - A Course in Miracles

I believe the mind is everything; all we experience. So, we can see mind as ego or we can see it through our "Buddha nature" as gaining and having wisdom, peace, and so forth as the Buddha taught. The mind also is helpful in discriminating what we can understand (what's simple) and what is not (what is difficult for us to understand: complex). Since majority of believers feel that god is "above our understanding" then I would conclude that since he is above our understanding he isn't simple according to us, he is complex/pretty difficult to understand in full.

If god were simple, I'd seem most believers may think they are being god. It's alright that god is complicated. I just think the OP has it backwards.

 

[Deidre]

If you believe, your life should become simpler too, not complex. That's how I see it, anyways.

 

[Tumah]

Calling something simple does not make it simple. The complexity atheists are talking about is an entity that is self-sustaining, able to create anything at will, etc. All which theist refuse or are unable explain besides references the flawed attributes tacked on to God based on assumptions rather than observations. God is not the best explanation since theists explain nothing regarding the mechanics and methods involved which is the point of an explanation. Theist invoke nothing more than "magic" when it comes to any details. Magic becomes the placeholder of actual methods and mechanics that every other explanation provides. Thus is not the most parsimonious explanation. String theory at the very least has some math behind it. God has nothing.

Despite what you may know about it, the study of real kabballah in Judaism is actually broken into two parts the study of how the Simple G-d (1)creates and (2)maintains a Complex world. Its exactly a study of the mechanics and method involved. Among others, I own a two inch thick book that's just an introduction to one aspect of the study of the technical aspect of the method.