The Christian God is NOT simple.

[Trog31]

The fact that a certain trait is used to evaluate an entity, like mass, doesn't mean it's not quantifiable. You may say whether some thing is heavy or light, massive or insubstantial, but that does not change the fact it is 53 grames. It is true that trait depends on perception, but that does not change it's quantifiability. No matter how fickle perception might be, all the fundamental factors governing perception, from the mass of the entity in the example above, to the gravity that allows you to perceive the mass as weights, to the neurological state which caused you to regard that weight as light, are in principle quantifiable. Complexity of a thing can be quantified by many different ways. Some example includes the theoretical minimum amount of data required to predict the behavior of the thing to a given degree of precision.

I wholeheartedly agree that some traits are quantifiable because they are based on fixed definitions outside of perception
Mass for instance (as in your example) is universally defined as "how much spacetime an object displaces".
It can be measured in different ways but the same value will be reached completely independant of what is perceived.
When you use a term like "heavy", "light", "soft", "bright", or "complex" those are JUDGEMENTS about an entity and
they depend very much on the perceiver. A child may say a carton of milk is "heavy" but an adult may say it is "light"
Independant of those judgements, the carton has the same mass.

All I get from your statement, is that in order for "complex" to be quantifiable, there has to be a fixed definition of
"complex" that is agreed upon. If we agree arbitrarily that "complex" is an object that has more than ten sides
then a ten-sided object is "simple" and an eleven-sided object is "complex". Someone outside of the agreement may
choose a completely different definition and so on. In order for something to be quantifiable, it has to correlate to
a fundamental principle that is true regardless of the perceiver. Mass, luminosity, composition, etc. those are
qualities that cannot vary between perception. complexity, attractiveness, sharpness, etc, are qualities
that depend on the perception of the observer and thus cannot be quantifiable.

The amount of data required to predict the behavior of the entire universe, or "Entire creation" as Christians would yokelishly put it, is potentially vast but finite by understanding of modern physics. The fact that physical universe might be infinite does not necessarily make the amount of data required to predict all arbitrary parts of it infinite as well. So long as there is ultimately an consistent set of rules governing it's behavior, a finite set of description of the rules would suffice to describe an infinite universe, or even an infinite number of individually infinite universes. So there is no need to postulate infinite complexity for purpose other than airy theological sophistry, much less need for any infinitely complex god.

Agreed. To argue that something is complex and therefore there is a god takes an arbitrary position and extrapolates wildly on the
reason for that arbitrary position.

However, what is certain is if the universe were created by god, god can not less complex than the universe, since predicting the universe is necessary to predicting that which created it, thus god can not be predicted by less information than required to predict what he created. So god can not solve the complexity paradox, which is the original thrust of this thread.

There I disagree with you. Because the term "complex" isn't defined, you can't say X is more complex than Y
and you are implying that "simple" entities cannot create entities with more "complexity" and if that were the case then life would not be possible.
A single cell (with an arbitrary complexity value of X) , can become an entire organism (with an arbirary complexity of X + Y). Whatever the measure
of complexity, the second entity carries with it many more times the original entity and thus could be said to be "more complex"
We can predict very "complex" things (like evolution) with very "simple" rules (like natural selection) (the quotes are because the terms
are relativeistic)

You can look up complexity on Wikipedia if you wish to genuinely begin to explore complexity as a specific, meaningful term capable of setting your statements above airy talk.

Yes and if you'll notice in the article terms like "system", "Tends", etc are used. Which are, as I said, based on arbitrary agreements.
"At the same time, what is complex and what is simple is relative and changes with time"
(Quoted from wikipedia).

Cheers.