Point: To say God is simple as in having no parts and is non-material and yet he is mind, is as clear as simply saying he is abstract. It is a roundabout and confused way of saying that.
To find God in such obtuse theology would demand his input, his gift of
grace. He would need to give some kind of sacramental
communication/revelation power to the words and ideas.
Nobody says he
does. Catholic and Protestant sacraments do not include turning such
foundational declarations into sacraments. They in fact emphasise distractions
from it. For example, take the Catholic Mass. People do not take communion to
receive Jesus as God. They think he already lives in them as God. It is about
his body and blood.
If God is a canvas we put anything we want on that is bad. It makes him a prop to honour ourselves. We all project our prejudices unto the unknown. If hypothetically we did not, we are still having him as a canvas just in case. That is bad too. A God that is there to be shaped by you is a projection however in the sense that you bring him down to the level of an earthly thing that can be used - like yourself.
Big claims need big evidence. Nothing verifies that some higher information source probably is giving religious or spiritual light through doctrines or rites.
Analysis
Defining God through absolute divine simplicity (having no parts) and as a non-material mind renders God so abstract that He becomes functionally indistinguishable from a mathematical concept or an abstract object. Or a mathematical guess. Or mistaking literal emptiness for a spirit. Or imagination. Or a combination of these.
In classical theology found in thinkers like Thomas Aquinas or Augustine,
God is not a composition of body and soul, matter and form, or potentiality
and actuality. He is pure act.
This sounds like how we define an
abstract concept like the number 3, or the concept of justice. Or it is worse.
3 and justice are relevant to us. 3 is more relevant than justice for everyone
guesses how to be fair. They are stuck in the details. Everyone's justice is
significantly marred by guesses, errors, hypocrisy and prejudices. By the way
God is said to be just. Anyway a God who is act is "more" abstract than 3 or
justice.
Note that thinking can show something is potentially abstract.
Our psychology treats things it cannot understand likewise. God, even if it is
not abstract, is too different from us so a normal psychology will approach
him as abstract.
Each detail said of God invites the abstract approach
in its own right.
Has no material parts.
Does not exist in space or time - needs no space or time.
Does not causally interact with the physical world. If miracles are exceptions they are too rare to register.
Is alive without being alive in a way that makes clear sense to us.
He has no sex or gender but wants male nouns and pronouns.
If God is
those, he is a cold, static concept rather than a living, relational being. The
relationship version of God is about us not the truth or about him.
We
are told that words applied to God like good or wise or mind do not mean the
exact same thing as when applied to humans (univocal), nor are they completely
different (equivocal). They are analogical. An analogy is hauled in when
something can only be roughly understood. It only shows some similarities.
There is a trick there when it comes to God. Nobody tells you how the
analogy helps or what exactly it conveys. No two read the symbol the same. And
what if someone says, "God says human life is sacred. That is an analogy.
There could still be justification for murdering the tyrant in cold blood"?
Reasonings like that are rife - eg there are devout practicing paedophiles.
There is massive gulf of many distinct ways between a completely
transcendent, simple God and material human beings.
For God to bridge
that the language, words, and ideas we use must be given a sacramental or
communicative power by God Himself to convey true presence and meaning.
The Incarnation as Jesus supposedly solves the chasm. God supposedly
helped us get enough religious truth from our poor language. That is not clear
either. Jesus did not sign any New Testament book as approved. A man being
fully human and also fully God invites agnosticism. At best it might make
sense though we do not know how. The suspicion that it is a contradiction
remains. We must never be tricked into meeting a contradiction with a
maybe-it-is-right. We would need Jesus here with us properly here and now. If
the Incarnation bridged, the bridge was connected to those who actually knew
him as friends.
Notice how if God has to help us find religious truth
in the vague, we are claiming mystical knowledge. Nobody talks about this
knowledge. They show deep down that they think claiming it and trying to be an
instrument of God to convey it to others is weird. They know others will not
relate well to their experience which shows the experiences were not real. The
scheme contradicts claims that God belief and God bring people together. It is
impossible for such personal and subjective perceptions to unite people
properly.
If a concept that is unnecessary for daily life dislikes being
investigated and leads to a heap of abstract notions, it can be safely
dismissed as nonsense.