God's complexity

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

You end up at C by choosing to go there.

And if C is not on the way to B then this is an extra choice you have to make. Otherwise you won't end up there. Which is what I said like 8 pages ago :P

Morbert wrote: »

Similarly, the answer to "how you won't end up at C" is by choosing not to go there.

Unless you choose to go there you won't go there. You don't need to choose not to go there, it is not like it is on the way.

If C is not on the way to B then to not go to C all you have to do is choose to go directly to B. You won't end up there by default.

There are an infinite number of points that I won't pass through by walking to the news agents, but it is not necessary for me to choosing not go to any of them. That happens by default.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

Anyone who supposes that God is simple but created a complex creation.

We are only 'complex' because we are not omnipotent Wicknight. It's the very omnipotence that makes God what we call with language 'simple'.

You seem to be saying that omnipotence requires complexity...
...why should it?

"overly complex" is irrelevant. If God is simpler than his creation then his creation is inefficient.

I would imagine we are very simple to God because he is omnipotent.

I'm understanding all of this perfectly fine thanks very much.

Well, you're doing better than me so....:D It's a bit mind bending, but interesting all the same..

..now for dinner, I'm starving..I hope someone can throw some more light in the meantime..

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

We are only 'complex' because we are not omnipotent Wicknight. It's the very omnipotence that makes God what we call with language 'simple'.

How do you figure that one? How does omnipotences make something simple?

lmaopml wrote: »

You seem to be saying that omnipotence requires complexity...
...why should it?

No I'm not, God is. It is illogical for God to create something that is more complex than himself since this can serve any purpose (and is thus inefficient).

lmaopml wrote: »

I would imagine we are very simple to God because he is omnipotent.

So you agree that we are simpler to God? That is my point.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

How do you figure that one? How does omnipotences make something simple?

Hi Wicknight,

My understanding is that part of being omnipotent is being all mighty and unchanging, a sameness of 'being'. There are various philosophies of course, but most would agree that God is simple in the sense that he is unchangeable..Infinit..

No I'm not, God is. It is illogical for God to create something that is more complex than himself since this can serve any purpose (and is thus inefficient).

I guess it depends on what you view as the defining 'complex'? and whether from an Omnipotent viewpoint 'complexity' has the same definition, actions and restrictions. We can't assign or force our definitions on God. It seems that we see things that are changeable with parts as being 'complex'. Does our perceived complexity of the universe and of ourselves as changeable things / creatures which necessitates 'parts' that move and change...serve God's will in an efficient manner? does he want us to be changeable and made up of parts, I would say 'yes'...

and if God's will is served, than it's logical that he made us exist as we are..

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

And if C is not on the way to B then this is an extra choice you have to make. Otherwise you won't end up there.

And if C is not on the way to B then this is an extra choice [not going to C] you have to make. Otherwise you will end up there.

Unless you choose to go there you won't go there. You don't need to choose not to go there, it is not like it is on the way.

If C is not on the way to B then to not go to C all you have to do is choose to go directly to B. You won't end up there by default.

If you choose to go directly to B, you choose to not go to C.

There are an infinite number of points that I won't pass through by walking to the news agents, but it is not necessary for me to choosing not go to any of them. That happens by default.

There are an infinite number of points that I won't pass through by walking to the news agents the long, indirect way, but it is not necessary for me to choose not go to any of them. That happens by default.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

If you choose to go directly to B, you choose to not go to C.

That is not what choice means. You don't choose to not to do something simply by choosing to do something else that is mutually exclusive.

If I decide to go to New Zealand for a holiday I won't be going to Los Angeles. But that fact does not require me to choose not to go to Los Angeles, or even to be aware of what Los Angeles is. Los Angeles may not even enter my point.

Morbert wrote: »

There are an infinite number of points that I won't pass through by walking to the news agents the long, indirect way, but it is not necessary for me to choose not go to any of them. That happens by default.

Can I ask what is up with the colours? Are you using them to convey some sort of highlighting of my posts or correction of my posts?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I guess it depends on what you view as the defining 'complex'? and whether from an Omnipotent viewpoint 'complexity' has the same definition, actions and restrictions.

Oh for crying out loud. Guys, you can't just throw out all ideas by saying they may not apply to God just because it gets inconvenient. Complex means what it means. It means that whether we are talking about God or not.

You don't I would point out do this with things you want to believe in, it only happens when you reach logical problems with what you believe.

Makes discussions like this with you guys pointless

raah!

Well in fairness, it does change matters alot. It's like trying to do mathematical operations on infinity. A good example is that a circle with infinite circumferance cannot be a circle, because it never joins up, and tends towards a straight line.

Omnipotence is a part of the definition of God, so anything which doesn't take it into account isn't a problem.

Going back to all that A-B-C business, as everyone has been trying to say, it's really quite irrelevant. If there was a B arrived at , it was meant to be arrived at. If C was arrived at through B, then that was what was meant to happen.

If people are complex, then they were meant to be. And if you have trouble seeing why they would be complex (or unnecessarily so in your opinion), remind yourself that we are not talking about a Deistic God, this is not soap bubbles being sphere's because it's the best way to store energy, it is more like an artistic creation, of a man with a hat.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

That is not what choice means. You don't choose to not to do something simply by choosing to do something else that is mutually exclusive.

If I decide to go to New Zealand for a holiday I won't be going to Los Angeles. But that fact does not require me to choose not to go to Los Angeles, or even to be aware of what Los Angeles is. Los Angeles may not even enter my point.

If A implies "not B" and you choose B then you must, by implication, choose "not A". If I want to go to New Zealand then I must choose not to go anywhere else. It is out and out circumlocution, but it is correct.

Can I ask what is up with the colours? Are you using them to convey some sort of highlighting of my posts or correction of my posts?

I am using identical reasoning to yours minus the assumption that 'effort must be spent' to argue that an inefficient method is the default choice. Both the reasoning in blue and your reasoning are consistent if everything is effortless. Only your reasoning is consistent if it takes effort to do things.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Well in fairness, it does change matters alot. It's like trying to do mathematical operations on infinity. A good example is that a circle with infinite circumferance cannot be a circle, because it never joins up, and tends towards a straight line.

Omnipotence is a part of the definition of God, so anything which doesn't take it into account isn't a problem.

I've no problem taking omnipotence into account, in fact most of my argument uses omnipotence all over the place.

I've a problem with someone saying something like Oh well we can't really know what omnipotence means exactly in relation to an infinite being outside of time so your argument is invalid

We either can know stuff about God or we can't.

It seems that around these parts we can know nice stuff about God but any time there is a problem with contradictions or paradoxes the old Oh we can't know that argument is rolled out.

People can't have it both ways, it just becomes ridiculous.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

If A implies "not B" and you choose B then you must, by implication, choose "not A". If I want to go to New Zealand then I must choose not to go anywhere else. It is out and out circumlocution, but it is correct.

Again that is not what choice means. You of course aren't in these other places, but that doesn't mean you consciously decided not to be based on their properties.

Choice means pick based on a set criteria.

Again this is clearly demonstrated when you think about someone going to say New Zealand "choosing" not to go to some where they have never heard of and has no idea exists. How can they choose not to go there if they aren't even aware of it in the first place.

You can't divorce choice from the conscious decision.

But to be honest our argument has got really silly at this stage. Do you disagree with any of my more significant points in relation to God's complexity, rather than us arguing over what

Morbert wrote: »

I am using identical reasoning to yours minus the assumption that 'effort must be spent' to argue that an inefficient method is the default choice.

Shockingly that wasn't clear to me, probably because none of my arguments have ever required effort to be spend. I'm at a loss how to explain this to you any more.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

I've no problem taking omnipotence into account, in fact most of my argument uses omnipotence all over the place.

I've a problem with someone saying something like Oh well we can't really know what omnipotence means exactly in relation to an infinite being outside of time so your argument is invalid

We either can know stuff about God or we can't.

It seems that around these parts we can know nice stuff about God but any time there is a problem with contradictions or paradoxes the old Oh we can't know that argument is rolled out.

People can't have it both ways, it just becomes ridiculous.

Well that contradictions and paradoxes are not really contradictions or paradoxes when used to explain something perfect by definition is also contained within the position. God is defined as good etc.

I don't think your argument takes proper stock of omnipotence, I explained why in the unquoted part of that post.

I have to say though, while we are talking about what groups of people do, it seems rather silly for a materialist (forgive this assumption if it's incorrect ) to enter into this discussion. Surely just stating your position as a materialist is enough. If you engage in this theological debate in which you have to take into account things like the christian definition of god, then christians can just say "no, you don't understand it as much as we do", and that's fair enough. I saw that courtiers reply thing quoted in one thread, that is invalidated if you use theological arguments.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that is not what choice means. You of course aren't in these other places, but that doesn't mean you consciously decided not to be based on their properties.

Choice means pick based on a set criteria.

Again this is clearly demonstrated when you think about someone going to say New Zealand "choosing" not to go to some where they have never heard of and has no idea exists. How can they choose not to go there if they aren't even aware of it in the first place.

You can't divorce choice from the conscious decision.

But to be honest our argument has got really silly at this stage. Do you disagree with any of my more significant points in relation to God's complexity, rather than us arguing over what

Well it has gotten silly. And while I could argue more about what it means to choose not to go anywhere other than New Zealand, I'll drop it here.

Shockingly that wasn't clear to me, probably because none of my arguments have ever required effort to be spend. I'm at a loss how to explain this to you any more.

Again, my point was that, if everything is effortless, then your reasoning is just as good as the reasoning in blue. I was saying that the requirement of effort is an implicit assumption of your reasoning regardless of whether or not you explicitly declared the assumption.

Morbert (earlier) wrote:

I have read your posts, and I am telling you that, despite you assertion that effort is irrelevant, your point only follows from the assumption that effort is relevant. Without this assumption, the reasoning in blue is just as valid as your reasoning.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Again, my point was that, if everything is effortless, then your reasoning is just as good as the reasoning in blue.

There are an infinite number of points that I won't pass through by walking to the news agents, but it is not necessary for me to choosing not go to any of them. That happens by default.

There are an infinite number of points that I won't pass through by walking to the news agents the long, indirect way, but it is not necessary for me to choose not go to any of them. That happens by default.

In the second one the person has choosen to go to the news agents "the long, indirect way". So again that is a further choice than simply going to the newsagents. You said it yourself. It is clear from even how we structure the sentence.

I choose to go to the news agents (1 choice)

I choose to go to the news agents via the long way (2 choices)

Again nothing to do with effort so again I've no idea where you think effort comes into this. The first one is one choice, the second one is 2 choices.

Fanny Cradock

"Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in..."

Winston Churchill

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Well that contradictions and paradoxes are not really contradictions or paradoxes when used to explain something perfect by definition is also contained within the position. God is defined as good etc.

God is also defined as omniscient and omnipotent. So there is no point saying well we don't really know what that means when we apply it to God.

You could say that about anything, including "good", for example we don't really know what good means when applied to God so we can't say God will do good things because "good" might mean something different when applied to God. Yet to hear a Christian claim that.

raah! wrote: »

I have to say though, while we are talking about what groups of people do, it seems rather silly for a materialist (forgive this assumption if it's incorrect ) to enter into this discussion. Surely just stating your position as a materialist is enough. If you engage in this theological debate in which you have to take into account things like the christian definition of god, then christians can just say "no, you don't understand it as much as we do", and that's fair enough.

How is it fair enough.

It is an cop out precisely because they don't understand it (or haven't thought about it properly) rather than because they are in possession of some unknown extra knowledge.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

"Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in..."

Winston Churchill

Post reported

Fanny Cradock

There is no need to report a post to me and then inform me that you are reporting me to myself. The quote wasn't personal abuse and it wasn't specifically directed at you; it was about the nature of the thread in general.

Slav

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh for crying out loud. Guys, you can't just throw out all ideas by saying they may not apply to God just because it gets inconvenient. Complex means what it means. It means that whether we are talking about God or not.

I think in classical Thomism divine simplicity is defined apophatically in the sense that God simple and not multiple or composite. The definition of simplicity is therefore endless negations of any hints of multiplicity by locking up any God's property we can think of into his essence.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think your definition of 'complex' is not necessarily the opposite of 'simple' in Thomism. Or I did get it all wrong and for the purpose of this discussion you use the definition of Aquinas but pointing out to its problems like reconciliation of divine simplicity with God's free choice?

Or I'm not following the thread at all?

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

I choose to go to the news agents (1 choice)

I choose to go to the news agents via the long way (2 choices)

Again nothing to do with effort so again I've no idea where you think effort comes into this. The first one is one choice, the second one is 2 choices.

This is my last post on the matter. The difference between the two statements above is the first is less specific than the second, and in no way implies the direct route. The same way "I ate a sandwich" does not tell the listener whether I ate it with my hands (efficient) or using a complicated system of levers (inefficient). The appropriate choices would instead be

I choose to go to the news agents directly

I choose to go to the news agents indirectly

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

This is my last post on the matter. The difference between the two statements above is the first is less specific than the second, and in no way implies the direct route. The same way "I ate a sandwich" does not tell the listener whether I ate it with my hands (efficient) or using a complicated system of levers (inefficient). The appropriate choices would instead be

I choose to go to the news agents directly

I choose to go to the news agents indirectly

"Indirectly" requires an extra choice, you must decide how to go indirectly. There is one direct route (which would be known to an omnipotent being, remember we are talking about God here).

There are an infinite number of indirect routes. You must pick an indirect route, you don't have to pick the direct route. The direct route just is.

Thus the clarification "directly" in the first statement is actually unnecessary since it is implied by simply going to the news agents, where as the indirect route requires 2 choices, one to go to the newsagents and another to decide what indirect route to take.

You cannot go indirectly to the newsagents without deciding which indirect route to take.

You can go to the newsagents directly without a further decision because there is only one direct route, and thus nothing extra to pick.

Zombrex

Slav wrote: »

I think in classical Thomism divine simplicity is defined apophatically in the sense that God simple and not multiple or composite. The definition of simplicity is therefore endless negations of any hints of multiplicity by locking up any God's property we can think of into his essence.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think your definition of 'complex' is not necessarily the opposite of 'simple' in Thomism. Or I did get it all wrong and for the purpose of this discussion you use the definition of Aquinas but pointing out to its problems like reconciliation of divine simplicity with God's free choice?

Or I'm not following the thread at all?

It would be if Aquinas supposed that creation was "multiple", in that God is not what we are. If we are complex God is simple. That would fit well into my argument.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

God is also defined as omniscient and omnipotent. So there is no point saying well we don't really know what that means when we apply it to God.

I haven't really seen anyone using this argument. I certainly wouldn't do that sort of thing.

You could say that about anything, including "good", for example we don't really know what good means when applied to God so we can't say God will do good things because "good" might mean something different when applied to God. Yet to hear a Christian claim that.

Since God is also defined as good, and for christians is the ultimate source of their objective notions of Good, then whatever god does is good.

How is it fair enough.

It is an cop out precisely because they don't understand it (or haven't thought about it properly) rather than because they are in possession of some unknown extra knowledge.

Well, it's fair enough because for example, if a physics lecturer was saying something to me, and I thought it was wrong, and said as much to him. But he then provided me with arguments and maintained that he was right. It would be a bit presumptuous of me not completely disregard the massive divide between his knowledge of the subject and mine.

It's no different when speaking with people who spent massive amounts of their time studying the bible. I haven't, and when I post on this board, if I say something about the bible I do so tentatively. My knowledge of theology is not on the same level as the people who post here.

You can say that you travel on from the definition of omnipotence and omniscience, and yes you can. But I believe your post is going into things like "God's reasons for doing things", and while this is fine, it would seem a bit unfair to these people who've studied the bible so much more than you or I have to presume that you are on equal levels.

These people possess extra knowledge in what is and isn't knowable about a christian god, because they know what is said or isn't said in the bible.

Slav

Wicknight wrote: »

It would be if Aquinas supposed that creation was "multiple", in that God is not what we are. If we are complex God is simple. That would fit well into my argument.

If I'm not mistaken, according to Aquinas we are "multiple" of course, however the angels are "simple".

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

I haven't really seen anyone using this argument. I certainly wouldn't do that sort of thing.

lmaopml did just a few posts ago.

raah! wrote: »

Since God is also defined as good, and for christians is the ultimate source of their objective notions of Good, then whatever god does is good.

Exactly. You can make logical deductions based on initial premises. If God is good then what he does will be good.

That all I'm doing as well.

raah! wrote: »

Well, it's fair enough because for example, if a physics lecturer was saying something to me, and I thought it was wrong, and said as much to him. But he then provided me with arguments and maintained that he was right. It would be a bit presumptuous of me not completely disregard the massive divide between his knowledge of the subject and mine.

Well no offense but I don't think Christians have a massive divide in understand of these issues. If anything in my experience the exact opposite seems to be the case, atheists often tend to be the few who think about these things (which could be why they are atheists :pac:)

But anyway this is going some what off topic, my point is that I'm not going to simply defer to someone because they are a Christian.

Zombrex

Slav wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken, according to Aquinas we are "multiple" of course, however the angels are "simple".

Well, leaving angels aside, that would be in line with the initial concepts behind my arguments. My argument holds if we are supposed to be more complex than God (or "not simple" if that is an easier way of understanding it)

Long Term Louth

Morbert wrote: »

This is my last post on the matter. The difference between the two statements above is the first is less specific than the second, and in no way implies the direct route. The same way "I ate a sandwich" does not tell the listener whether I ate it with my hands (efficient) or using a complicated system of levers (inefficient). The appropriate choices would instead be

I choose to go to the news agents directly

I choose to go to the news agents indirectly

Probably ate the sandwich with his mouth!

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly. You can make logical deductions based on initial premises. If God is good then what he does will be good.

That all I'm doing as well.

Can you not say that if God is omnipotent that everything he does is what he wanted to do?

How does this not invalidate talks of "ineffiency" regardless of how inappropriate the use of the term is here.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

You must pick an indirect route, you don't have to pick the direct route.

And I am confident that anyone bored enough to follow our conversation has seen why the above is not true if everything is effortless.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Can you not say that if God is omnipotent that everything he does is what he wanted to do?

I am saying that, so I hope you can

raah! wrote: »

How does this not invalidate talks of "ineffiency" regardless of how inappropriate the use of the term is here.

Because inefficiency is basically God doing what he doesn't want to do.

Slav

Wicknight wrote: »

Well, leaving angels aside, that would be in line with the initial concepts behind my arguments. My argument holds if we are supposed to be more complex than God (or "not simple" if that is an easier way of understanding it)

I'm still not sure that the definitions are the same. As I understand it in the context of divine simplicity:

Someone simple: everything one can be attributed with is one's essence.

Someone complex: one's attributes do not necessarily identify with one's essence

It does not say that the number of attributes of something simple is less the that number of something complex.

Zombrex

Slav wrote: »

I'm still not sure that the definitions are the same. As I understand it in the context of divine simplicity:

Someone simple: everything one can be attributed with is one's essence.

Someone complex: one's attributes do not necessarily identify with one's essence

It does not say that the number of attributes of something simple is less the that number of something complex.

Ummm, that isn't what I took from reading about Aquinas' argument. Can you expand on this a bit?

Herbal Deity

O(My God)

raah!

Can you not say that if God is omnipotent that everything he does is what he wanted to do?

Wicknight wrote: »

I am saying that, so I hope you can

Because inefficiency is basically God doing what he doesn't want to do.

Do you see how these two arguments, when viewed in light of what you have been saying, are contradictory?

Slav

Wicknight wrote: »

Ummm, that isn't what I took from reading about Aquinas' argument. Can you expand on this a bit?

Well, I don't know where to start from as I don't know where we disagree. Let's start from the beginning. Do you agree that divine simplicity is defined apophatically by returning any God's attribute to his essence? So it's something like that:

God has A. - No, God is A essentially.
God has B. - No, God is B essentially.
... and so on.

Examples of those As and Bs could be love, goodness, mercy, etc.

Everything that does not fit into "God is X essentially" formula is considered creation in Thomism. Examples are grace, matter, angels, etc.

OK so far?

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh for crying out loud. Guys, you can't just throw out all ideas by saying they may not apply to God just because it gets inconvenient. Complex means what it means. It means that whether we are talking about God or not.

You don't I would point out do this with things you want to believe in, it only happens when you reach logical problems with what you believe.

Makes discussions like this with you guys pointless

Sorry I failed you Wicknight ! Seriously, I just think that there really is a definition problem insofar as understanding the relationship between omnipotence and infinity and all infinity entails, and what we call 'complex' finit creation....and the part that 'C' plays from an omnipotent perspective. That's actually what I was referring to before...

I also don't know whether you understood the concept of divine simplicity in the way it's meant to be understood - Slav can help there...

It's like you're comparing big apples with little apples ( not opposits ), when you're comparing divine simplicity with complex finit beings to arrive at your arguement...

Anyways, I hope you get to the bottom of it...

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Do you see how these two arguments, when viewed in light of what you have been saying, are contradictory?

They are contradictory, that is the point. When I'm arguing the hypothetical of God doing something inefficiently I'm not arguing in support of it. I'm trying to explain why it is nonsensical.

Zombrex

Slav wrote: »

Well, I don't know where to start from as I don't know where we disagree. Let's start from the beginning. Do you agree that divine simplicity is defined apophatically by returning any God's attribute to his essence? So it's something like that:

God has A. - No, God is A essentially.
God has B. - No, God is B essentially.
... and so on.

Examples of those As and Bs could be love, goodness, mercy, etc.

Everything that does not fit into "God is X essentially" formula is considered creation in Thomism. Examples are grace, matter, angels, etc.

OK so far?

Yup, fine so far. God is not a thing, he is the thing.

Joe1919

Here's some quick arguments about gods simplicity, some go back to pagan times.

1 If God was complex, he would have parts. But God is not dependant on his parts, hence he has no parts, he is Unity and he is simple.

2 Essence, form or properties put limits on things. But God is infinite, he has no limits and hence no form or essence, except existence. God is pure existence, his essence is his existence. (Aquinas?)

3. Things usually evolve from the simple to the complex. But God precedes everything. He is the First Cause and the cause of complex things. Hence God is perfectly simple.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

They are contradictory, that is the point. When I'm arguing the hypothetical of God doing something inefficiently I'm not arguing in support of it. I'm trying to explain why it is nonsensical.

What you seem to have bene arguing is that god's making complex people is inefficient. But it's only inefficient if his intention was just to creat efficient people. The reason there is a contradiction (of your entire argument, the hypothetical reduction to absurdity) is that you assume that God is doing something he didn't want to (like making complex people hwen he only wanted people), which contradicts what you accepted about omnipotence.

Zombrex

Well he is a question for you all.

God is described in the Bible as having different states, he is angry, he is jealous, he plans and thinks. He knows and considers.

So the question is would you consider a being that does this to be more or less simple than a being that has less qualities? Imagine say God has less emotional states than he does. Would this theoretical being be more or less simple than the current God.

Genuine question, I'm interested to see what people think about this.

Slav

Wicknight wrote: »

Yup, fine so far. God is not a thing, he is the thing.

Oops, looks like now it's my turn to ask you to expand on it.

How "a thing" or "the thing" relates to divine simplicity? For example, Eastern Christianity is not in agreement with Augustine and Aquinas and so it sees God as "complex" (Οὐσία + ἐνέργειαι) but God is still "the thing" and not "a thing".

Slav

Wicknight wrote: »

God is described in the Bible as having different states, he is angry, he is jealous, he plans and thinks. He knows and considers.

So the question is would you consider a being that does this to be more or less simple than a being that has less qualities? Imagine say God has less emotional states than he does. Would this theoretical being be more or less simple than the current God.

Good question!

I would consider it to be more complex then the being with less qualities. The different "states" that you listed above are exactly those ἐνέργειαι so we can say the more uncreated energies the more complex the being is. However my opinion does not count as I don't subscribe to divine simplicity.

From the divine simplicity point of view (as I understand it) quantity makes no difference. Moreover it cannot be more simple or less simple: it can be either simple or else it's multiple. For example, angels according to Aquinas are simple but obviously they have less qualities then God.

Joe1919

Wicknight wrote: »

Well he is a question for you all.

God is described in the Bible as having different states, he is angry, he is jealous, he plans and thinks. He knows and considers.

So the question is would you consider a being that does this to be more or less simple than a being that has less qualities? Imagine say God has less emotional states than he does. Would this theoretical being be more or less simple than the current God.

Genuine question, I'm interested to see what people think about this.

You cant attribute emotion to God, as
1 emotions require a body,
2 are an imperfection (according to Stoics)
3 Cause a change in the eternal (unchanging) being.

Heres a useful link
http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/#H2

Zombrex

Joe1919 wrote: »

You cant attribute emotion to God, as
1 emotions require a body,
2 are an imperfection (according to Stoics)
3 Cause a change in the eternal (unchanging) being.

Heres a useful link
http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/#H2

What would you call what is described in the Bible such as when it says that God is love, or that God is a jealous god?

Zombrex

Slav wrote: »

Oops, looks like now it's my turn to ask you to expand on it.

How "a thing" or "the thing" relates to divine simplicity? For example, Eastern Christianity is not in agreement with Augustine and Aquinas and so it sees God as "complex" (Οὐσία + ἐνέργειαι) but God is still "the thing" and not "a thing".

My understanding is that saying God is a... implies that God belongs to a set of things. My car is a car. There is a set of things call cars and my car belongs to this set. Even if my car was the only one left it would still be a car

To describe God as a something is to lessen the total nature of God, the something comes before God and then God is one of these things.

raah!

Universals!

jordan..

If God is real then how and why??? Why did he create a vast universe with just us in it?? Does evolution not make more sense that creationalism!
It has been proven we evolved from a more primitive species!

Joe1919

Wicknight wrote: »

What would you call what is described in the Bible such as when it says that God is love, or that God is a jealous god?

If you read Aquinas below and Brian Davies in the other link, you will see that modern Christians may be mistaken in their views of a personal God and their interpretation of certain metaphors as literal.

Home > Summa Theologica > First Part > Question 13
3. Are any names applied to God said of Him literally, or are all to be taken metaphorically? ............
Reply to Objection 3. These names which are applied to God literally imply corporeal conditions not in the thing signified, but as regards their mode of signification; whereas those which are applied to God metaphorically imply and mean a corporeal condition in the thing signified.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1013.htm

'Many theists nowadays take it for granted God is a person, albeit a kind of disembodied super-powerful one. Brian Davies observes that the formula God is a person by no means a traditional one. It does not occur in the Bible. It is foreign to the Fathers and to writers up to and beyond the Middle Ages. Not does it occur in the creeds (2000, 560). Judaism believes man is in the image of God because man has understanding and free choice. Yet that is a long way from God actually being a person, much less in the way persons are persons. (Man is in the image of God but not vice versa.) Islam regards the ninety-nine names of Allah as titles of honor and not at all descriptions of Gods essence. The Christian Trinity speaks of three persons of one substance (ousia or substantia). It does not say the Godhead itself is a person, or that God is three persons in one person.'
http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/#H2

Zombrex

Joe1919 wrote: »

If you read Aquinas below and Brian Davies in the other link, you will see that modern Christians may be mistaken in their views of a personal God and their interpretation of certain metaphors as literal.

Ok.... that didn't actually answer my question.