gods are portrayed as the most complex beings imaginable...

[wintermute]

In "Against the Gods" (available from https://freedomainradio.com/free/). Stefan gives four reasons why gods are contradictory. These are described in the section "Why Are Gods Self-Contradictory?". The first reason is that: "Since gods are portrayed as the most complex beings imaginable, they may well be many things, but eternal cannot be one of them." The premise that gods are portrayed as complex does not correlate with the concept of God as historically developed in the West.

 

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy begins its article on "Divine Simplicity" by bluntly stating: "Divine simplicity is central to the classical Western concept of God." (Para. 1, Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/).The Encyclopedia stresses that the concept of Divine Simplicity is not unique to Christianity but developed from Plato and Aristotle: "The Platonic idea of a highest principle, combining supreme unity and utter perfection, strongly influenced Jewish and early Christian discussions of God’s supreme unity and perfection. . . . Aristotle’s first mover is a simple, unchanging form that still causally affects other beings... The Platonic notion of a supreme perfection at a remove from all things and Aristotle’s causally efficacious, disembodied mind would combine to suggest a powerful model for Western theologians seeking language to describe God’s nature." (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Divine Simplicity", section "1. Origins", para. 1). 

 

God is specifically described as simple, not complex in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts — a plain contradiction in terms. Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the infinite since even this would imply a capacity for increased perfection, which the very notion of the infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and cannot be any physical or real composition in God." (Catholic Encyclopedia > G > The Nature and Attributes of God, "Simplicity of God", Retrieved from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC).

 

Radio Replies Vol. 1 also specifically defines God as being simple: "God is a spiritual, substantial, personal being, infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, absolutely simple or lacking composition, immutable, happy in Himself and by Himself, and infinitely superior to all that is or can be conceived apart from Himself. He is incomprehensible in His infinite perfection by all lesser intelligences, although knowable as to the fact of His existence as Living Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immense, and distinct from all that He has created. That is what I mean by God." ([emphasis mine] "8. What do you mean by the term God?", Retrieved from http://www.radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=2). 

 

Why does Stefan say that "gods are portrayed as complex"?

[D.D.]

I have not read Stef's book "Against the Gods" (link) nor have I read the sources of your references, so take my thoughts for what they are worth:

 

In "Against the Gods" (available from https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/against_the_gods.html),Stefan gives four reasons why gods are contradictory. These are described in the section "Why Are Gods Self-Contradictory?". The first reason is that: "Since gods are portrayed as the most complex beings imaginable, they may well be many things, but eternal cannot be one of them." The premise that gods are portrayed as complex does not correlate with the concept of God as historically developed in the West.

 

....

 

Why does Stefan say that "gods are portrayed as complex"?

 

On page 15 of Against the Gods, section titled "Why Are Gods Self-Contradictory?":

"...a god is defined as an eternal being which exists independent of material form and detectable energy, and which usually possesses the rather enviable attributes of omniscience and omnipotence.

 

First of all, we know from biology that even if an eternal being could exist, it would be the simplest being conceivable. An eternal being could never have evolved, since it does not die and reproduce, and therefore biological evolution could never have layered levels of increasing complexity over its initial simplicity. We all understand that the human eye did not pop into existence without any prior development; and the human eye is infinitely less complex than an omniscient and omnipotent god. Since gods are portrayed as the most complex beings imaginable, they may well be many things, but eternal cannot be one of them.

 

Secondly, we also know that consciousness is an effect of matter – specifically biological matter, in the form of a brain."

 

 

To sum up, in our empirical world (based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic), as Stef says "...even if an eternal being could exist, it would be the simplest being conceivable." but then it would lack the complexity required to be able to create something complex.  When theorizing the existence of a God, it must be "portrayed as complex".  This is why he states that gods are portrayed as complex.

 

My question to you would be why are you interested in..."Why does Stefan say that "gods are portrayed as complex"?"

[thebeardslastcall]

I haven't read the book, but would agree with the assertion that complexity doesn't really have anything to do with eternality. You can easily suggest the universe is both eternal and extremely complex. But the universe is also simple in how it works and thus "complex" is a perspective judgement on what constitutes complexity. For example a gravity simulation can have a simple rule that creates a complex set of interactions and behaviors.

 

Also when using the word infinite there is more than one type of infinite and it's relevant to distinguish them. The number Pi may have an infinite number of decimals, but it's never going to be as long as 3.2 and thus has a finite value that is infinitely deep and precise.

 

You said there were four contradictions proposed in the book, did the other three have issues as well or just this one?

 

Radio Replies Vol. 1 also specifically defines God as being simple: "God is a spiritual, substantial, personal being, infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, absolutely simple or lacking composition, immutable, happy in Himself and by Himself, and infinitely superior to all that is or can be conceived apart from Himself. He is incomprehensible in His infinite perfection by all lesser intelligences, although knowable as to the fact of His existence as Living Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immense, and distinct from all that He has created. That is what I mean by God." ([emphasis mine] "8. What do you mean by the term God?", Retrieved from http://www.radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=2). 

 

Are you okay with that definition of God or do you have any issues with it? Do you believe in God or were you merely pointing out a weakness in his argument?

[Donnadogsoth]

Why does Stefan say that "gods are portrayed as complex"?

 

Stefan says that all gods are portrayed as complex because he wants to complexify them out of existence.

 

Nowhere does it follow that a simple God cannot also be subtle.

[D.D.]

Stefan says that all gods are portrayed as complex because he wants to complexify them out of existence.

Where is your evidence to back up your claim that Stef "wants to complexify [God] out of existence?

Please note that Stef doesn't "say", he provides a logical argument.

 

If I understand your statement correctly, you believe in the existence of God? I'm curious so that we all can understand your position and can respond accordingly.

 

 

Nowhere does it follow that a simple God cannot also be subtle.

I don't understand what your saying here, please elaborate unless it's an argument regarding the existence of a God...the OP wasn't asking that and it would be best to answer that question before moving on to another.

[Donnadogsoth]

Where is your evidence to back up your claim that Stef "wants to complexify [God] out of existence?

Please note that Stef doesn't "say", he provides a logical argument.

 

If I understand your statement correctly, you believe in the existence of God? I'm curious so that we all can understand your position and can respond accordingly.

 

 

I don't understand what your saying here, please elaborate unless it's an argument regarding the existence of a God...the OP wasn't asking that and it would be best to answer that question before moving on to another.

 

The evidence is that Stef doesn't like Gods to the point of putting up this "Gods are complex" strawman instead of seeing what Christian theology actually teaches.

 

Yes, I believe in the existence of the Christian God.

 

By “Nowhere does it follow that a simple God cannot also be subtle” I'm augmenting the OP's submission that the Christian God is theologically said to be simple.   

[D.D.]

Yes, I believe in the existence of the Christian God.

Your argument and avatar makes better sense to me now.

I'm sorry to say that I will not continue to debate this specific topic with you due to your belief but I must thank you for your open honesty.

 

I will say that Christianity, as a religion, is far more virtuous than a religion like Islam.  Of course, "virtuous" depends on ones definition.

[wintermute]

I was brought up Christian, I pray and read Scripture on a daily basis, and I attend Mass periodically, though not regularly. I don't feel qualified to answer the very large question of what it means to "believe" and whether or not I qualify. What I do feel qualified to say is that I want to believe in what is real.

 

To that end, I want is to answer the question: is God self-contradictory? I've read "Against the Gods" several times, and I found the reasons given there for God's self-contradiction both extremely thought-provoking and also unsatisfying. By "unsatisfying" I mean that the full implications of these questions were not discussed in the book, so I thought I would explore each more fully on the forums.

 

Each argument raised such a formidable array of deep questions in my mind that I felt it best to isolate each argument within its own discussion, so far as possible. The issue at hand (the complexity of an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent god) touches upon several difficult questions:

• What do we mean by "complex"? 
• Is "omnipotence" conceivable? 
• What is "sentient"?
• Is it possible to be "eternal"?

I agree with thebeardslastcall that "complex" is a subjective standard in the sense that the same thing can be described either as "complex" or as "simple" depending on what aspect of that thing you are describing; therefore, I suggest that perhaps "complexity" is a distraction from the the other questions mentioned above: "is 'omnipotence' conceivable?", "what is 'sentient'?" and "is it possible to be 'eternal'?"

 

I'm not sure I agree that Stefan is intentionally attempting to create a straw man of God, but I am open the possibility that this was his intention. Nevertheless, his arguments raise substantial questions. Perhaps my original post should have been: "are omnipotence, sentience, and eternity possible either in isolation or in combination" because the question of why someone would say God is complex is less significant that the above questions.

[thebeardslastcall]

My book has arguments against the notion of a god as well, but I don't over-simplify the matter to a list of a few reasons. I also somewhat make the point that it's impossible not to straw-man Christianity, because there are a million different Christianities and they're evolved to be hard to pin down. The one you attack is never the one that defends the religion. The one that is saved is not yours, but they'll pretend if you "saved" one, or one dodges the attack, all have been saved. Thus in a way they are many things and nothing at all, at the same time. A conceptual blob I call it.

[wintermute]

My book has arguments against the notion of a god as well, but I don't over-simplify the matter to a list of a few reasons. I also somewhat make the point that it's impossible not to straw-man Christianity, because there are a million different Christianities and they're evolved to be hard to pin down. The one you attack is never the one that defends the religion. The one that is saved is not yours, but they'll pretend if you "saved" one, or one dodges the attack, all have been saved. Thus in a way they are many things and nothing at all, at the same time. A conceptual blob I call it.

 

I think it is safe to say that any recognizable form of Christianity will include belief in a personal and eternal god with the properties of omniscience and omnipotence. Even early semi-Christian systems such as Gnosticism, Nestorianism, and Arianism accepted this.

 

It is not necessary to debate the "branches" (Scripture, infallibility, free will, etc.). The root of the question is whether or it is possible for a being to possess the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and sentience.

 

If "complexity" is not a valid reason for denying this possibility, what is?

[ofd]

I will say that Christianity, as a religion, is far more virtuous than a religion like Islam.

 

Islam is a Christian heresy, Nestorianism, with a few perks for desert people (raping, looting, beheading).

[D.D.]

Islam is a Christian heresy, Nestorianism, with a few perks for desert people (raping, looting, beheading).

Source Link for the following:

Question: "What is Nestorianism? Who were the Nestorians?"

 

Answer: The Nestorians are followers of Nestorius (c. AD 386–451), who was Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorianism is based on the belief put forth by Nestorius that emphasized the disunity of the human and divine natures of Christ. According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This idea is not scriptural, however, and goes against the orthodox Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union, which states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person. God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the Incarnation Jesus also became a human being (John 1:14).

 

Interesting, so to sum up:

Christian doctrine "states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person."

Nestorianism belief puts forth that "Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body."

[thebeardslastcall]

If you want to believe in what is real, what in your reality have you observed that is a display of these qualities of omnipotence or omniscience? What evidence in your short life on Earth have you seen to make an eternal being seem both possible and real? How "real" is God to you now?

What is a "power" that never gets used? What is a "potential" that can never or will never be realized?

 

Is all of existence getting wiped out by God, at any moment, a possibility you entertain?

 

You're right to question whether or not you believe, because nobody really believes in God.

I doubt Stefan would intentionally strawman a position. My guess on the complexity issue would be to address the argument that a God is a necessary explanation for the complexity and state of reality we observe. To suggest God is an explanation for life's complexity or "grandeur" creates something even more grand to explain this existence. Addressing complexity may thus help point out the flaw of that as a rational for there needing to be a God, as the rational goes in the wrong direction with the explanation. My explanation (in book) for reality appropriately goes in the other direction, arriving at subjective complexity from a simplicity of rules, with no need of a God. I also explain other aspects of what a God is and why a God would be bad. The notion of God appeals to many people and that's what leads them to desire and pretend to believe in one, which is why I make some effort to attack the desirability of a God as well.

[Donnadogsoth]

If you want to believe in what is real, what in your reality have you observed that is a display of these qualities of omnipotence or omniscience? What evidence in your short life on Earth have you seen to make an eternal being seem both possible and real? How "real" is God to you now?

 

What is a "power" that never gets used? What is a "potential" that can never or will never be realized?

 

Is all of existence getting wiped out by God, at any moment, a possibility you entertain?

 

You're right to question whether or not you believe, because nobody really believes in God.

I doubt Stefan would intentionally strawman a position. My guess on the complexity issue would be to address the argument that a God is a necessary explanation for the complexity and state of reality we observe. To suggest God is an explanation for life's complexity or "grandeur" creates something even more grand to explain this existence. Addressing complexity may thus help point out the flaw of that as a rational for there needing to be a God, as the rational goes in the wrong direction with the explanation. My explanation (in book) for reality appropriately goes in the other direction, arriving at subjective complexity from a simplicity of rules, with no need of a God. I also explain other aspects of what a God is and why a God would be bad. The notion of God appeals to many people and that's what leads them to desire and pretend to believe in one, which is why I make some effort to attack the desirability of a God as well.

 

What relevance does the desirability of a God have?  If he exists he'll still exist no matter how desirable one finds him to be.

[thebeardslastcall]

What relevance does the desirability of a God have?  If he exists he'll still exist no matter how desirable one finds him to be.

 

You admit you don't get the relevance and then you make up that it has to do with God's existence, but then you shoot down your own proposition as not relevant to that either. Why couldn't you just leave it at the first question?

[Donnadogsoth]

You admit you don't get the relevance and then you make up that it has to do with God's existence, but then you shoot down your own proposition as not relevant to that either. Why couldn't you just leave it at the first question?

 

So...you don't like God because he's a meanie?

[wintermute]

If you want to believe in what is real, what in your reality have you observed that is a display of these qualities of omnipotence or omniscience? What evidence in your short life on Earth have you seen to make an eternal being seem both possible and real? How "real" is God to you now?

 

What is a "power" that never gets used? What is a "potential" that can never or will never be realized?

 

Is all of existence getting wiped out by God, at any moment, a possibility you entertain?

 

You're right to question whether or not you believe, because nobody really believes in God.

I doubt Stefan would intentionally strawman a position. My guess on the complexity issue would be to address the argument that a God is a necessary explanation for the complexity and state of reality we observe. To suggest God is an explanation for life's complexity or "grandeur" creates something even more grand to explain this existence. Addressing complexity may thus help point out the flaw of that as a rational for there needing to be a God, as the rational goes in the wrong direction with the explanation. My explanation (in book) for reality appropriately goes in the other direction, arriving at subjective complexity from a simplicity of rules, with no need of a God. I also explain other aspects of what a God is and why a God would be bad. The notion of God appeals to many people and that's what leads them to desire and pretend to believe in one, which is why I make some effort to attack the desirability of a God as well.

 

These are good questions. Since each would require an extensive essay, let me focus on what seems like the simplest to answer: "...what in your reality have you observed that is a display of these qualities of omnipotence or omniscience?"

 

I would answer this in two ways: one positively and one negatively. Negatively, I've seen nothing which conclusively proves that omnipotence is not possible. Positively, I believe in the law of entropy, and this has power over the entire universe to destroy it. This seems like omnipotence; however, there must be a creative force more powerful than entropy in order to explain the origin of reality. Returning to the original question, I have not observed anything in reality displaying omnipotence; it is the observation of reality itself that displays the quality of an omnipotent creative power.

 

Omniscience is more difficult. This is because I do not have a clear idea of what "sentience" means. Most people agree that walls and doors are not sentience, but the same could be said of neurons and blood vessels. At what level of anatomy does a human being become "sentient"? Do multiple humans have "sentience" beyond the individuals? At what stage in life do humans gain and lose the quality of "sentience"? Questions like these must be answered before I can hope to approach the problem of omniscience.

[D.D.]

Help us understand why this topic is interesting to you and if you could, narrow your question to 1 or 2 sentences for clarity.

 

I'm still unsure what you're really asking and why?

[wintermute]

Help us understand why this topic is interesting to you and if you could, narrow your question to 1 or 2 sentences for clarity.

 

I'm still unsure what you're really asking and why?

 

I'm interested in the question of whether or not God is real. Why does it seem confusing or strange to you that a person would be interested in this perennial question?

 

What I'm asking is why Atheists think God is self-contradictory. It can't be due to God's "complexity" because this isn't even a definable thing.

[D.D.]

Why does it seem confusing or strange to you that a person would be interested in this perennial question?

You've over-exaggerated my position.  I'm trying to help you by clearly understanding your question(s) and motivation.

I don't find your question perplexing or weird - where did I say that?

 

 

I'm interested in the question of whether or not God is real.

 

What I'm asking is why Atheists think God is self-contradictory. It can't be due to God's "complexity" because this isn't even a definable thing.

Unless I didn't understand, you did not answer why the topic of God's existence, nor why Atheists think God is self-contradictory, is interesting to you.

 

I ask because you said you read Stef's book which is constructed on reason and logic as a rebuttal to claims put forth by theologists where, he steps the reader through the logic of one of your issues - "complexity".

 

As a side note - To make the claim that "God's complexity isn't even a definable thing", means you have knowledge of God's state to make the claim of whether or not God's complexity is definable - complex, not complex, something in between.

 

 

Stef offers his services to help people with their questions like yourself.

Do your homework and have an as honest and open conversation as possible.