help with defending divine simplicity, frens

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

help with defending divine simplicity, frens Christanon 09/28/18 (Fri) 09:54:39 e61fc4 No.708085

I saw this comment on le reddit:

"But the system of [God+Gods Effects] is complex and has parts, as "Gods effects" is complex and has parts and is not identical with God. Proof being that we ourselves and the universe supposedly are his effects, and we are complex and have parts, and hence Gods effects (us) are complex and have parts, and are also not identical with God.

You can't cheat your way to something complex like omniscience while keeping simplicity. Either you know the forms of the other things (directly or indirectly makes no difference, and frankly indirectly is more complex) and thus have parts, or you know the form of only your own simple self, and hence are not omniscient because your simple self does not include all the very existent complex forms.

Your simple self cannot remain simple if it in any way includes the other things that are not simple.

Not to mention that even your own description of "perfect detail" inherently supposes parts, as something with no parts doesn't have details."

Christanon 09/28/18 (Fri) 10:14:53 d74314 No.708091

>>708085

He is right though, not that it really matters in the end, the sum is more important than its parts.

For example, do you really think the trinity is simple? Of course, you might grasp it now if you studied long enough but it's something a lot of people have troubles understanding and pass it off as "God's mystery"

In finne I'd say God is simple yet the most complex of all beings since he's the source of all.

The geometrical point is the most simple thing and yet it contains the circle and all geometrical figures in itself

Christanon 09/28/18 (Fri) 10:20:14 e61fc4 No.708092

>>708091

>do you really think the trinity is simple? Of course, you might grasp it now if you studied long enough but it's something a lot of people have troubles understanding and pass it off as "God's mystery"

I don't think that the Trinity is simple in terms of of 'simple' meaning "easy to understand" but that's a different thing to 'simple' meaning "not composed of parts".

Christanon 09/28/18 (Fri) 10:26:01 d74314 No.708093

>>708092

Ah I see.

Well, in that case, pure rationalistic arguments won't work. God is not irrational but "above reason", the prophets didn't apprehend God in a discursive way.

Try to explain "logically" in materialistic terms that something is 3 but also one at the same time. Can't work.

I'd even say, God above concepts such as "complexity" and "simplicity" altogether.

Christanon 09/28/18 (Fri) 10:44:11 e61fc4 No.708097

>>708093

>Try to explain "logically" in materialistic terms that something is 3 but also one at the same time. Can't work.

Well, I mean we don't want to affirm that God is both 3 and one *in the same sense*. That would be an outright contradiction.

Christanon 09/28/18 (Fri) 16:48:12 ee02f0 No.708158

>>693535

Christanon 09/28/18 (Fri) 18:59:30 0867be No.708194

frogs winnie the pooh