The Christian God is NOT simple.

[theVOID]

Just a recent thought, the start of an argument but nothing I've gone over too thoroughly so there may be problems with the premises or form and some of it is a bit superfluous but I haven't tried to compact the argument yet.

In brief;

God is often described as being simple, this is an extremely important claim for any theists as the more complex an explanation is the lower the prior probability of this thing existing. Seeing as it is already extremely difficult to present any evidence for the existence of God outside of the experience of certain sensations (which is poor quality evidence given the number of contradictory claims based on the same standard) if we could show that the prior probability of this being was much lower than that of possible alternative causes for the universe we would be forced to conclude that the other explanations are much more likely to be true.

The argument (split into parts for convenience);

A)
1. God has a plan
2. Plans are concepts
3. Concepts are the products of minds
4. Therefore, God's plan exists in his mind.

B)
5. God's plan is much too complex for the human mind to grasp *
6. The human mind is extraordinarily complex **
7. Therefore, God is even more complex than the human mind.

--At this point I have established the topic of my thread; The human mind is NOT simple and if God's mind is more complex then God is necessarily NOT simple--

--The following is a description of the implications--

C)
8. Quantum fluctuations are a possible cause for the universe ***
9. The human mind is more complex than a quantum fluctuation ***
10. Therefore, God is more complex than a quantum fluctuation. ***

D)
11. The more complex something is the lower the prior probability of it existing****
12. God is more complex than a quantum fluctuation (From 10) ***
12. Therefore, the prior probability of God existing is lower than that of Quantum fluctuations. ***

--NOTES--

Section A could also argue that since God is entirely a mind (I assume no part of God is unintelligent, he doesn't have limbs for instance) his plan is necessarily a part of this mind, this could reduce the size of the argument substantially.

* Some theists may argue that we can understand God's plan, though this is an uncommon position. I suspect when pressed they would not be able to describe the plan without resorting to Ad hoc explanations, let alone produce a coherent description of this plan.

** This point is likely unnecessary

*** You could substitute 'Quantum Fluctuation' with 'Algorithm' or any other "bottom up" or "crane" explanation for the universe, which one is chosen is beside the point. "Skyhook" explanations such as 'brain in a vat' or 'computer simulation' would not be applicable.

**** This is, when dealing with the first state of affairs, the same as saying "the chance of it existing as a brute fact".

[Minimalist]

His followers sure as shit are.

[Cinjin]

I would agree that the christian god is extraordinarily complex. More than likely because humans have had 2000 years to create a supernatural character that has as many subtle and varied personality traits as we do. Since god is a creation of man and the nature of man is extremely complex - god of course must be and really, can ONLY be brutally complex.

That being said, his actual plan itself has always seemed uncomfortably and painfully simple. Thus the contradiction of who their god is. You're right, most christians are always saying, "we can't assume to know god's plan", but I've always felt that that phrase was a poor attempt at trying to cover for the obvious inadequacies of their god and his very clear lack of a decent plan.

What is god's plan? The only one we're all really sure of is: Stop sinning - Get saved - Love me - Do that and live with me forever. Pretty basic stuff ... and yet the execution of this plan by god is fraught with a host of logistical problems, misguided prophets, implausible ground rules, and a multitude of impassable contradictions. I would go so far as to say that its the very contradiction of their complex god not being able to formulate or apparently even execute a reasonable plan that keeps millions of us from attending church and inviting jesus into our sinful little hearts.

[Rayaan]

I don't think the proposition that we cannot understand God's plan necessarily means that He is more complex than the human mind.

Also, isn't it mathematically true that complexity can be compressed into a simpler formula, like an algorithm which creates fractals? Whatever the simplest thing is, which may be the cause for the universe, I think it's possible that it can be just as complex as the human brain because it already contains all the instructions for the complexity and self-organization that gradually evolves out of that system.

[The Grand Nudger]

Even without a plan, god would be impossibly complex. It's a fine argument, made countless times. I still don't see the need for the argument. Either believers have evidence for god or they do not. Not abstractions or calculations of probability, not philosophical concepts, not logical arguments. Evidence.

[theVOID]

I don't think the proposition that we cannot understand God's plan necessarily means that He is more complex than the human mind.

If we cannot understand something it is because our mind is limited, God's intellect must be superior to our own if he does understand something.

I suppose someone could argue that we do not know Gods plan but if he told us we would understand, that however means we should be able to understand all of his actions and why he did everything he did which in turn means we should be able to make inferences about his plan from the order of events... I don't think too many theists would be willing to bite that bullet.

Also, isn't it mathematically true that complexity can be compressed into a simpler formula, like an algorithm which creates fractals?

Only the product is complex, the algorithm is simple. There are algorithms to compress complex data, it's what WinRAR does to files, however the amount of reduction is minimal, it's not the same as generating something by running an algorithm in which case if all the variables were fixed you could run it backwards - but if there are any truly random elements in the algorithm it would be impossible to take the complex thing and run it back to get the same algorithm so you can later extract it and get back to how it was again.

And anyway, if God knew what he wanted and then designed an algorithm to achieve what he wanted he still had a plan, something that I assume would be true if God existed, considering the evidence available all concludes something along those lines. However, the algorithm would only be the way he implemented his plan, unless he crafted an algorithm arbitrarily and ended up with the universe how it is that is, and if that is the case then God + algorithm > algorithm in terms of complexity so you've not made any ground..

Whatever the simplest thing is, which may be the cause for the universe, I think it's possible that it can be just as complex as the human brain because it already contains all the instructions for the complexity and self-organization that gradually evolves out of that system.

The difference is in the probability of each proposition being true which is extremely important when we are positing that something existed at s1 (the first state of affairs) as a brute fact. The more simple explanation, the state of affairs that requires the least amount of information to describe, is the most likely explanation all else being equal, because we are starting at s1 all else is necessarily equal.

You should agree I hope that we should believe that which is most likely true?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think the proposition that we cannot understand God's plan necessarily means that He is more complex than the human mind.

Also, isn't it mathematically true that complexity can be compressed into a simpler formula, like an algorithm which creates fractals? Whatever the simplest thing is, which may be the cause for the universe, I think it's possible that it can be just as complex as the human brain because it already contains all the instructions for the complexity and self-organization that gradually evolves out of that system.

And yet it would seem that things do not have to be complex for organization to evolve from a system. Emergence.

[fr0d0]

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

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

False

[Rayaan]

The difference is in the probability of each proposition being true which is extremely important when we are positing that something existed at s1 (the first state of affairs) as a brute fact. The more simple explanation, the state of affairs that requires the least amount of information to describe, is the most likely explanation all else being equal, because we are starting at s1 all else is necessarily equal.

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). 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. So the universe is already complex in that sense. 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.

[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.