God is simple, not complex

[savethedreams]

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.

Are you defining God by 'Abrahamic deity' ? God being simple is not a universal agreement upon theist or believers. One can believe in God and not the Abrahamic one. So God doesn't always have to be simple...

 

[Parsimony]

If God is an entity without parts (i.e. there is only one part), then He would only be able to contain one bit of information. He has to contain at least one "part" for each "bit" of knowledge He has (something has be able to distinguish one piece of information from another. If there is no distinction between two pieces of information, then they must represent the same piece of information). If He knows the answer to every possible mathematical equation, then He contains an infinite number of bits and is infinitely complex. If you could somehow prove that it was logically sensible to store two or more bits in a single, indivisible entity, you'd blow philosophy and science off their hinges. Computer scientists would forever praise you for allowing them to develop computers with massively-enhanced storage capacity.

 

[Gambit]

That is not arguing, and is not worth of an actual counterargument. As a matter of fact, it would be wrong or at least misleading to offer a counterargument, because it would encourage the misperception that you offered an argument to be countered.

I didn't start this thread to hear your pontifications on why you think people believe in God. So, stop trying to hijack this thread. If you do not wish to respond to the OP or discuss the subject matter of this thread, then I suggest you find another thread to amuse yourself. Or, better yet, start your own!

 

[Gambit]

Are you defining God by 'Abrahamic deity' ? God being simple is not a universal agreement upon theist or believers. One can believe in God and not the Abrahamic one. So God doesn't always have to be simple...

There are as many misinformed believers (actually, probably more) than nonbelievers.

 

[psychoslice]

Actually God is simple, we are as a collective unity are that, everything is God, God isn't a man in the sky, God is all there IS , God is the Cosmos, so there is no need to even call this God, it only cheapens it.

 

[jeager106]

psychoslice:
What would you call "god" if not "god"? It's important that people understand what's written so that written material can be understood thus common nouns are important .
If I call a cup of coffee a sudden outburst and walk into an eatery and ask for a sudden
outburst I will get only strange inquiring looks and NO COFFEE.
How dreadful that would be.

 

[Gambit]

God isn't a man in the sky.

This is a straw man argument.

God is all there IS , God is the Cosmos, so there is no need to even call this God, it only cheapens it.

The "Cosmos" is complex, not simple.

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn't start this thread to hear your pontifications on why you think people believe in God.

I know. To the best of my understanding, you did it hoping to see people to submit to your unsupported claims.

Why you expected no challenge to such claims despite creating the thread in a debate area, I have no idea.

So, stop trying to hijack this thread.

That is an exotic understanding of "hijacking". Maybe you meant to post this thread under theology or something?

If you do not wish to respond to the OP or discuss the subject matter of this thread, then I suggest you find another thread to amuse yourself. Or, better yet, start your own!

I am responding to the OP in the most reasonable way possible: by pointing out that it has no argument to speak of.

It is too bad that you can't deal with it.

 

[psychoslice]

psychoslice:
What would you call "god" if not "god"? It's important that people understand what's written so that written material can be understood thus common nouns are important .
If I call a cup of coffee a sudden outburst and walk into an eatery and ask for a sudden
outburst I will get only strange inquiring looks and NO COFFEE.
How dreadful that would be.

Language of whatever does not make something true or false, you have to look outside the words or in between the words to understand the words. don't get hooked on scripture as it is, again look in between the words, the words have never done any good in this world so fare.

 

[psychoslice]

This is a straw man argument.



The "Cosmos" is complex, not simple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman#cite_note-james122-1

The Cosmos is as hard as you want it to be.

 

[jeager106]

psychoslice:
Yeah, sadly your quite right. The "words" haven't done much good for mankind.
Fact is the Word has only been used by mankind to promote war and misery
all in the name of some nations "god".

 

[Gambit]

To the best of my understanding, you did it hoping to see people to submit to your unsupported claims.

The claim I made in the OP is that God is understood by theologians to be simple, not complex. I cited a source to support that claim. If you had bothered to actually read the OP, then you would have learned that fact.

That is an exotic understanding of "hijacking".

We both know that you are attempting to hijack this thread. In fact, you have a track record of engaging in this type of activity. Stop it!

 

[psychoslice]

The claim I made in the OP is that God is understood by theologians to be simple, not complex. I cited a source to support that claim. If you had bothered to actually read the OP, then you would have learned that fact.



We both know that you are attempting to hijack this thread. In fact, you have a track record of engaging in this type of activity. Stop it!

It seems that anyone who doesn't agree with you are hijacking your precious thread lol.

 

[Gambit]

The Cosmos is as hard as you want it to be.

Perhaps, I should put this in terms that you might understand. The world is complex, Brahman is not.

 

[Gambit]

It seems that anyone who doesn't agree with you are hijacking your precious thread lol.

I don't necessarily have a problem with somebody attempting to argue that God is complex. That's on topic. What I have a problem with is people coming in here and making drive-by comments that has nothing to do with topic.

 

[Gambit]

If God is an entity without parts (i.e. there is only one part), then He would only be able to contain one bit of information. He has to contain at least one "part" for each "bit" of knowledge He has (something has be able to distinguish one piece of information from another. If there is no distinction between two pieces of information, then they must represent the same piece of information). If He knows the answer to every possible mathematical equation, then He contains an infinite number of bits and is infinitely complex. If you could somehow prove that it was logically sensible to store two or more bits in a single, indivisible entity, you'd blow philosophy and science off their hinges. Computer scientists would forever praise you for allowing them to develop computers with massively-enhanced storage capacity.

You have a basic misunderstanding about God's knowledge.

God does not possess his knowledge of diverse things through the reception of multiple intelligible species or forms in his intellect, but, rather, has this vast knowledge of things in knowing his own essence as imitable. (source: pg. 165, "God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness" by James E. Dolezal)

 

[psychoslice]

Perhaps, I should put this in terms that you might understand. The world is complex, Brahman is not.

But who cares about the world and the way it works, we are here not to make all this complicated, but to simply live and enjoy, just as all animals do.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't necessarily have a problem with somebody attempting to argue that God is complex. That's on topic. What I have a problem with is people coming in here and making drive-by comments that has nothing to do with topic.

Maybe its does have something to do with the topic, but you just cannot see it ?.

 

[Curious George]

How exactly am I equivocating?

The word simple.

 

[Gambit]

But who cares about the world and the way it works.

If you don't care about the subject matter (simplicity and complexity), then I suggest you find another thread. (Thinking is permitted on my threads; non-thinking (which apparently you are promoting) is not.)