God is simple, not complex

[outhouse]

But what is to stop someone from arguing about the necessity of a god- a philosophical question, without discussing the dogma of a god- a religious question?

Not really the OP is it?

But I hope, and I think you do know, that this concept of god meant different things to every civilization that has existed. The necessity is more of a historical question not as much a philosophical question.

Basically the philosophical aspects are blind without the historical concept. Even if we were talking about todays views one needs biblical knowledge to discuss the topic in detail, because so many people define it "properly" in their perspective.

And if you don't understand "their" personal perspective by having that knowledge on tap, your lost in a debate and you have no ammunition.


I guarantee you both have different ideas on this definition, and if you spend all your debating differences, you never get to the content in context that is relevant.

 

[Reflex]

But returning toward the op, how do you reconcile god acting in our space and time, yet still maintaining a non-composite nature. Specifically, if god interacts with matter, god must belong to a same set as other entities that interact in our space time if nothing else but this facet. If god had a property of which he is not the single member of that set I.e. is shared with others, then he cannot be equal to that property as he is with omnipotentence etc. This means the property cannot be equal to the other properties as with the omni traits. Thus, god must have a property with which it is not equal and with which the other properties are not equal. Ergo, god cannot be simple without tropes. If we add tropes, god can exist as simple but divine simplicity is no longer the most ontologically "parsimonious" explanation.

My ideas are constantly evolving about this, but I think The Urantia Book sums it up quite well: "Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature." Couple this with the realization that "to deny the possibility of his volitional self-limitation amounts to a denial of this very concept of his volitional absoluteness" and it is easy to understand that creatio ex nihilo can be understood as creatio ex deo -- creation out of nothing apart from himself. I realize that this may be out of step with the standard interpretation, but it seems to work better than ex nihilo. The UB goes on to explain (using my own words here) that the primal differentials of reality are the act and the acted upon; and that the primal relationship is the tension between them. Thus, "God can pass from simplicity to complexity, from identity to variation, from quiescence to motion, from infinity to finitude, from the divine to the human, and from unity to duality and triunity." God is all these things, yet, his unity is absolute and therefore also simple.

In my mind, this fits quite well with the Thomistic thesis that reads, "Potency and act are a complete division of being. Hence, whatever is must be either pure act or a unit composed of potency and act as its primary and intrinsic principles" and with John 1:1-3 which reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

 

[Curious George]

Not really the OP is it?

But I hope, and I think you do know, that this concept of god meant different things to every civilization that has existed. The necessity is more of a historical question not as much a philosophical question.

Basically the philosophical aspects are blind without the historical concept. Even if we were talking about todays views one needs biblical knowledge to discuss the topic in detail, because so many people define it "properly" in their perspective.

And if you don't understand "their" personal perspective by having that knowledge on tap, your lost in a debate and you have no ammunition.


I guarantee you both have different ideas on this definition, and if you spend all your debating differences, you never get to the content in context that is relevant.

I was thinking about Plato's Forms. I wouldn't characterize him as outside of his domain in asserting such entities exist. With a little work such an assertion can be turned into a god concept. I have enjoyed many of your posts on religion and its evolution, they have encouraged plenty of research on my part. And if someone were to co-opt another god I could see how that research or understanding would be relevant, but I also see it as possible to discuss the possibility of a god without fully defining that god.

 

[outhouse]

I also see it as possible to discuss the possibility of a god without fully defining that god

True. But every concept discussed in a way is defining specifics, often based on a specific religious ideology.

I have enjoyed

Thank you bud.

 

[outhouse]

"Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature."

The only problem with such, is its based on assumptions that have pushed the concept out of religious ideology, into imaginative ideology.

Basically, you want to attribute the concept as doing something in nature because of religious mythology that made the concept responsible for every aspect of nature from rain to thunder and volcanos were all attributed to god/gods.

With time everyone has a natural explanation that does not exist in the mythology anymore.

But the main flaw I see is that is you still are attributing nature to a god, and changing the wording for personal means

 

[outhouse]

I was thinking about Plato's Forms.

There is a lot of knowledge there George, provided it is used in proper context, much applies to biblical text.

The biggest eye opening day I had from any professor, was on Aristotle's rhetorical prose all of the biblical authors were trained in. My class was on Pauls use of this prose and it gave me greater understanding of Paul. Ask anyone that knew me 5 years ago here, I used to hate Paul and personally despised him. Once I learned this it gave me a 100% new insight to who he was [in my eyes]

It opened up more history and biblical context that was over my head before.

 

[Reflex]

Plotinus (204/5 – 270 C.E.) considered himself to be a Platonist, but his influence on Christian and Islamic philosophies cannot be overestimated. Return to the One by Brian Hines highlights this. It's a good read. Holophany: The Loop of Creation by Clara Szala (a free download here) goes to great lengths to explain why, in the end, God is undefinable.

 

[outhouse]

, God is undefinable

Better go back in time and tell all of the religious authors of all 3 major branches of Abrahamic traditions that defined such differently.

Factually there is different ideology concerning the definitions.

 

[Curious George]

My ideas are constantly evolving about this, but I think The Urantia Book sums it up quite well: "Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature." Couple this with the realization that "to deny the possibility of his volitional self-limitation amounts to a denial of this very concept of his volitional absoluteness" and it is easy to understand that creatio ex nihilo can be understood as creatio ex deo -- creation out of nothing apart from himself. I realize that this may be out of step with the standard interpretation, but it seems to work better than ex nihilo. The UB goes on to explain (using my own words here) that the primal differentials of reality are the act and the acted upon; and that the primal relationship is the tension between them. Thus, "God can pass from simplicity to complexity, from identity to variation, from quiescence to motion, from infinity to finitude, from the divine to the human, and from unity to duality and triunity." God is all these things, yet, his unity is absolute and therefore also simple.

In my mind, this fits quite well with the Thomistic thesis that reads, "Potency and act are a complete division of being. Hence, whatever is must be either pure act or a unit composed of potency and act as its primary and intrinsic principles" and with John 1:1-3 which reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

I am not sure how to reply to this. You have defined god in such a way that I am having trouble digesting its coherence, and I am a pretty open and divergent thinker. Perhaps you could describe it differently?

Nevertheless, I will assume the problem is on my end here. I have not read the urantia book, so I should probably start there. I will return to this in the future after having read such and pondering the issue more.

 

[Gambit]

What's your point? You mean "God" is an allegory? And if so, what for?

I believe he meant "analogy," not "allegory."

 

[Reflex]

I don't think the problem is with you. I have a tendency to overthink things: I never tire of playing in the sandbox of ideas. I suspect it would have been better to say, "Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature" and leave it with that.

 

[outhouse]

; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature

How so?

There is nothing credible one can posit to substantiate that position.

 

[Reflex]

I believe he meant "analogy," not "allegory."

There are kinds of language: univocal, equivocal, and analogous.

 

[Reflex]

Oh, geez. I just looked over what outhouse had to say. All I will say is that he's about a cupful of Fruit Loops short of a full bowl.

 

[Gambit]

It takes biblical knowledge to debate god, and I can see why many are forced to ignore content they know nothing about.

Why?

 

[Gambit]

There are kinds of language: univocal, equivocal, and analogous.

Right.

"Therefore the universal cause of the whole species is not an univocal agent; and the universal cause comes before the particular cause. But this universal agent, whilst it is not univocal, nevertheless is not altogether equivocal, otherwise it could not produce its own likeness, but rather it is to be called an analogical agent, as all univocal predications are reduced to one first non-univocal analogical predication, which is being." - St. Thomas Aquinas, ("Summa Theologica," 1013 Article 5)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There are kinds of language: univocal, equivocal, and analogous.

And God is apparently simple, so....?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Therefore the universal cause of the whole species is not an univocal agent; and the universal cause comes before the particular cause. But this universal agent, whilst it is not univocal, nevertheless is not altogether equivocal, otherwise it could not produce its own likeness, but rather it is to be called an analogical agent, as all univocal predications are reduced to one first non-univocal analogical predication, which is being." - St. Thomas Aquinas, ("Summa Theologica," 1013 Article 5)

 

[Gambit]

And God is apparently simple, so....?

God as being itself can only be predicated analogically.

"Being is not a genus, since it is not predicated univocally but only analogically." - St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[Pavank]

I feel god is merely a belief.