God is simple, not complex

[Shad]

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.

You can then easily mention a specific mechanic and explain it rather than making an a statement that you know X or that X is actually an acceptable explanation of a method or mechanic.

 

[Tumah]

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.

Yes, that's exactly what they are trying (or should be, if they believe in a Simple G-d) to imply.
Simple here means without any sort of division whatsoever. In other words, in this example, G-d, His wisdom, His knowledge, His thoughts, His actions, His words are all really only one thing: G-d Himself. There is no division between them. We call them different things, because we lack the ability to perceive something lacking any basic sort of division. That's why in Judaism, we usually take the apophatic direction when discussing G-d in reality (although when discussing our perception of Him, we don't).

 

[Tumah]

You can then easily mention a specific mechanic and explain it rather than making an a statement that you know X or that X is actually an acceptable explanation of a method or mechanic.

That went over my head. What are you trying to say?

 

[Gambit]

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.

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

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.

Theists freely acknowledge that creation ex nihilo is a supernatural or a miraculous act (it defies a naturalistic or mechanistic explanation). On the other hand, atheists attempt to (deceitfully) co-opt the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo and brand it as their own, arguing that the "universe spontaneously emerges from nothing." (The term "spontaneous" here is simply a euphemism for "magic." So, the so-called "atheistic" explanation actually qualifies as a supernatural one, atheistic objections to the contrary notwithstanding.)

 

[Shad]

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

Sure. I understand this. However merely attaching an attribute something does not make it true. Also there are issues when an attribute which is an abstract becomes a reality. This is flawed as no abstract is a property.

Theists freely acknowledge that creation ex nihilo is a supernatural or a miraculous act (it defies a naturalistic or mechanistic explanation). On the other hand, atheists attempt to (deceitfully) co-opt the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo and brand it as their own, arguing that the "universe spontaneously emerges from nothing." (The term "spontaneous" here is simply a euphemism for "magic." So, the so-called "atheistic" explanation actually qualifies as a supernatural one, atheistic objections to the contrary notwithstanding.)

Strawman since I am an atheist and never proposed the universe came from nothing. However you missed the point that you are still creating "magic" to explain how God does anything no more than your post charges atheists with. However you take one further step in mentioning the magician and the magic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, that's exactly what they are trying (or should be, if they believe in a Simple G-d) to imply.
Simple here means without any sort of division whatsoever. In other words, in this example, G-d, His wisdom, His knowledge, His thoughts, His actions, His words are all really only one thing: G-d Himself. There is no division between them. We call them different things, because we lack the ability to perceive something lacking any basic sort of division. That's why in Judaism, we usually take the apophatic direction when discussing G-d in reality (although when discussing our perception of Him, we don't).

Interesting. I had the impression that believers say they have limited knowledge in god because he is too complicated to understand. If he was simple, I'd think we have good understanding of him. Though even people are complicated even though some live simple lives.

Push and pull

 

[Shad]

That went over my head. What are you trying to say?

I asked for a specific method or mechanic you claimed exists that does not rely on attaching attributes, assumptions, to explain the how which is the point of an explanation.

 

[Tumah]

I asked for a specific method or mechanic you claimed exists that does not rely on attaching attributes, assumptions, to explain the how which is the point of an explanation.

I'm a little confused. If it takes 470 pages, just to begin to understand one aspect of the mechanic, are you really asking me to do it in one post? Or even two?
You're argument was that there "believers" always say creation is magic without providing any method or mechanic for how this magic happened. I am telling you this is not true. What is your argument now? That I'm lying?

 

[Shad]

I'm a little confused. If it takes 470 pages, just to begin to understand one aspect of the mechanic, are you really asking me to do it in one post? Or even two?
You're argument was that there "believers" always say creation is magic without providing any method or mechanic for how this magic happened. I am telling you this is not true. What is your argument now? That I'm lying?

Reference a book and I will read it. Please make it something mainstream enough that it will be found within university databases as I have access to a large number of databases. If not at least something available on Amazon.

You could be merely referencing the principle based association in which ideas which are abstract concepts becomes ontological reality. You could be attaching attributes to God which bypass an actually explanation which are a "because it can" attribute.

The above is what I consider magic, when a principle or attribute becomes the ability to do while bypassing the how.

 

[Tumah]

Reference a book and I will read it. Please make it something mainstream enough that it will be found within university databases as I have access to a large number of databases. If not at least something available on Amazon.

Authentic Jewish source material in English does not exist. Authors write for Jews, not the general public. Oddly I did find an old print on Amazon. But that's not going to help you much.

You could be merely referencing the principle based association in which ideas which are abstract concepts becomes ontological reality. You could be attaching attributes to God which bypass an actually explanation which are a "because it can" attribute.

I am not referencing principals, I am referencing process.
Although I imagine, "because that's how it works" is only going to be the eventual answer to any question of "why".

The above is what I consider magic, when a principle or attribute becomes the ability to do while bypassing the how.

Please explain to me how the initial singularity came into existence (or if you lean towards brane cosmology, the fist bulk) without resorting to "we don't understand that yet".

 

[Gambit]

Oh, I see that you are an Advaitist.

I'm not an Advaitist. I'm simply acknowledging the similarities between different philosophical traditions.

By the way, I'm failing to see why you are rolling your eyes.

 

[Quintessence]

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

If one wishes to be intellectually lazy, one can come up with any excuse to summarily dismiss something, it seems. Misusing the principle or parsimony outside of its intended context seems to be in fashion nowadays. But to abuse that principle further, the most parsimonious explanation would lack superfluous concepts like god(s) entirely. Sorry, but the atheists are right on that one.

 

[Gambit]

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.

The doctrine of divine simplicity is one of the cornerstones of philosophical theology. (Anyone who has seriously studied theology knows this.) That being said, we as finite minds cannot fully comprehend the infinite mind. Our analytical minds are useful, but limited. It only can comprehend the partial. But where the analytical mind fails, the intuitive mind succeeds. The intuitive mind can apprehend wholeness.

 

[Gambit]

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

IMHO, spirituality is basically about simplifying things.

By the way, congratulations on your engagement. Coincidentally, October 8 is my birthday.

 

[Gambit]

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.

Ein Sof?

 

[Curious George]

I'm a little confused. If it takes 470 pages, just to begin to understand one aspect of the mechanic, are you really asking me to do it in one post? Or even two?
You're argument was that there "believers" always say creation is magic without providing any method or mechanic for how this magic happened. I am telling you this is not true. What is your argument now? That I'm lying?

Not so simple.

 

[Tumah]

Ein Sof?

Something like that.

 

[Tumah]

Not so simple.

Not even a little bit.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Would you agree that divine simplicity is not so simple a concept?

 

[Curious George]

"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?

Hmm well used quote when the competition is between one vs. many, but not so when the competition is one vs. none.