The Christian God is NOT simple.

[theVOID]

Actually, a omnipotent being must be able to change that which omniscience had allowed him to unerringly know.

I disagree, they are necessarily the same thing, there are several lines of reasoning for this;

1. For a being to be able to do everything, he must know everything that can be done.

2. Knowing is a thing than can be done, if you can do everything, you must know everything that can be known.

Yes VOID I cringe when using the term 'attribute' as it doesn't fit. I was hoping you'd see past that tho', as that was the term you were using.

I think you're being too simplistic. For example, trying to force the statement 'God is love' to mean 'God is exclusively love' (as does Plato), isn't honestly addressing the problem as presented. Likewise the elimination of a plan. All we have in Genesis is a functional ontology that sets God as arranger and ongoing controller of the cosmos. It would contradict the basis of Christianity to deny the plan.

It was not I who suggested the term, it was present on the link you provided me with. The precise way you formulated your idea, with God = Omnipotence + omniscience + love etc, whether or not you call them 'attributes', still completely defeats the purpose of divine simplicity.

The idea is not that 'God is exclusively love', I never suggested anything remotely like it, the idea is that God does not have omniscience, God is omniscience, he is omnipotence and that implies that omnipotence and omniscience are identical - Up to that point I agree, Omniscience and omnipotence are necessarily the same thing, you simply cannot have one without the other. However, when theists try and amalgamate "love", "justice", "personal" etc to the mix it all falls apart.

And as you should have noticed, even when directly discussing the doctrine of divine simplicity we haven't even come close to addressing information and how it is precisely a measure of complexity, thus your response to my argument, that I have misunderstood divine simplicity, is completely false.

It seems to me that while the word 'simplicity' is in common, the meaning of the word is not. DDS, if it is a legitimate argument at all, simply shows that God = omnipotence = omniscience = love = personal, it attempts to refute the idea that he is 'composite' which does make him more simple than a composite being, but it also means that a "Simple God" with a plan is only more simple relative to a "Composite God" with a plan.

So, for the sake of argument I am willing to completely overlook that the arguments for DDS fall apart after God=Omniscience=Omnipotence and accept that he is identical to his attributes, this still says nothing about information.

What does divine simplicity address? Material origins of the cosmos? A point of first cause? Are we talking about the primordeal soup at the beginning of the cosmos? Do we have to insist on a linear God to put him at the beginning? What about the God that 'just is'? How does timelessness fit together with complexity/ simplicity?

This makes it fairly obvious to me that I'm not the one who doesn't understand the concept....

DDS addresses the claim that God is a composite of independent properties or attributes, that Omniscience, omnipotence, love, personhood, truth and existence are things that combine to create God - their response attempts to show that these things are all one-in-the-same.

I don't see the original information as the actual word of God. That would be Allah and Islam. I see that information as people discerning the nature of God. What can simply defined as positive force disseminates into miriad conclusions and propositions aimed at that simple goal.

'Word of God' is meaningless if you aren't talking about information, words are variable components in a language that represent concepts. If you want to say it's some "abstract non-information words" then you might as well not use the term Word at all, it's mere obfuscation and should be avoided.

A plan is not a positive force, you agreed above that God has a plan. A plan is information describing a goal state of affairs and causal mechanisms for transitioning between states of affairs tending towards this goal state of affairs - this plan requires information to describe and the amount of information used to describe any given state of affairs is a direct representation of the complexity of the state of affairs.

God's plan involved creating a universe, planet earth, water, trees, animals, angels, humans, heaven, hell (plus whatever is specific in an individuals theology, such as the flood, forbidden fruit, satan etc) and then creating a situation where he had to impregnate a virgin to give birth to himself in human form so he could save us from our sins against him, be crucified, resurrected, inspire people to write it all down and then send himself/Jesus back at a later point in time to rapture the world...

What we are interested in knowing is "what was the state of affairs that caused the universe", the state of affairs you propose contained a non-composite god and a plan, this is a much more complex state of affairs than the vast majority of non-theistic state of affairs.

And you've misunderstood my example above, so let me try and clarify - Take a specific part of the bible that you believe is an accurate representation of God; God has an 'idea', he communicated this idea to one of the biblical authors by creating patterns of neural activity in his brain, this person communicated this idea to other people by using written or spoken language - The amount of information needed to describe this idea is a direct measure of it's complexity. If there was no miscommunication between God and Man then whatever we can say about the complexity of the idea is true, independent of any possible medium.