Xeno, I think the conundrum is that as soon as we use human language, such as ultimate simpleton, simplicity and complexity, we are anthropomorphizing whatever we are talking about.
The scientists say that matter is mostly empty space. But what's in that empty space? Simplicity? Complexity? Both? On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:10 AM, "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: So the question is, in terms of classical theism: 1. (assuming people believe in a personal god) How does the ultimate simpleton create complexity? 2. (assuming people believe in an impersonal god) How does ultimate simplicity create complexity? 3. (assuming people do not believe in a god or God) Not necessary to ask this particular question. But it could be rephrased to something like, how does complexity arise from the conditions that preceded it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : Judy, if the nature of God of classical theism is absolutely simple, then how can one speak about the nature of God, which implies 2 parts, God and His nature? Which actually is how Maharishi talks about it: Purusha and Prakriti, Shiva and Shakti, silence and dynamism, etc. If the quote of classical theism refers to the impersonal God, then I agree with it. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:35 AM, "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Just for da record, the nature of the God of classical theism is said to be absolutely simple: "The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the 'attributes' of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. [also intelligence] are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity No, I don't understand what that means either!
