The Christian God is NOT simple.

[theVOID]

Divine simplicity again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simp...an_thought

Do you really think the appropriate response to an argument against divine simplicity is to simply link to the freakin wikipedia page about it? You could at least be so courteous to explain why you think my argument doesn't work.

If God is identical to his attributes (notice the plural?) then God == Attributes (Omniscience + Omnibenevolence + Omnipotence + Love etc). This, as stated on the page you supplied, completely negates the very concept they are trying to propose. It means God != Omniscience + love but without Omnibenevolence + Omnipotence etc, It means we can Describe God's nature in terms of other phenomenon using information and the more information we need to describe a given entity or state of affairs, the more complex that entity or state of affairs is.

Also, A "plan" is NOT an attribute, neither is information, so divine simplicity as stated in the link you provided does not even address the concern I raised. A plan is information describing desired states of affairs and causal mechanisms for achieving these states of affairs - The more states of affairs and causal mechanisms for transitioning between them there are, the more complex the plan is.

Would you be so kind as to describe God's plan to us, from start to finish, as best you can?

Seeing as it is already extremely difficult to present any evidence for the existence of God outside of the experience of certain sensations

False

Please provide some, it shouldn't be difficult.

---

I was making an analogy by using the example of an algorithm, but my real point is that, the fact that we have consciousness and emotions is a good reason to think that what they came from already includes consciousness within itself (which is God).

So if entity X has attribute Y then we should believe that the cause of X also had attribute Y? Explain why we have a good reason to assume this.

The universe is unintelligent, do we also have good reason to believe that what caused it was unintelligent? What about a truck, it has a steering wheel and a seat, should we assume that it came from something else with a steering wheel and a seat? Should we assume that burnt food came from something else that was burnt? My table has the property of 'square', so it must have come from something else square, right? Cellphone has a wifi connection, should we assume that it came from something else with Wifi?

We know that consciousness was made possible by many complex interactions between chemicals and particles, and if so, then this means that the level of complexity which existed at the very beginning was capable of producing conscious beings like you and me.

And here we can flip your previous 'rule' on it's head again... If consciousness is comprised of the complex interactions between chemical and particles then we have 'a good reason to think that what it came from already includes' the complex interaction between chemicals and particles. All I had to do there is substitute the words you used and the statement still works.

Conscious emerged from a more simple set of interactions which emerged from a more set of interactions which emerged from a more simple set of interactions etc. Simply because the first set of interactions is capable of producing more complex things does not make it as complex as the thing it produces.

So the universe is already complex in that sense.

It's less complex than at a later point in time.

Therefore, it wouldn't be illogical to believe that there was already consciousness before s1 because it already contains the amount of information necessary to produces eyes, brains, feelings, and everything else (that makes us human). Otherwise, we wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be talking about this right now.

I'm not sure you're getting me. I am not arguing that it is illogical to believe that there was consciousness period, I am arguing that we should believe the explanation that, amongst competing explanations all else being equal, takes the least amount of information to describe. The less information required to describe a state of affairs the more simple it is and the more simple it is the higher the prior probability of it being true.

A state of affairs that describes all of those aspects you mentioned; eyes, brains, feelings and everything else requires an extraordinary amount of information. The probability of something that complex existing in the very first state of affairs in existence requires that all the information for everything that could ever be known and every detail that could ever be described was "just there", existing as a brute fact - I find that notion highly absurd.