When we begin believing there are simple explanations for the happenings of the universe, we are in dangerous territory. Physics is not simple. The complex nature and enormity of the universe is not simple, the ecosystem is not simple and so forth. So when I hear a theologian or philosopher talk about how simple reality is, I know He’s not talking about anything God made. When you analyze God’s art, it is not simple, it is extremely complex. In fact, the more we know about our reality, the more we understand it’s infinite intricacy.
We like simple explanations of reality because we like control. We want to stuff the complexity of the world into our little minds because if we can hold it all in our minds, there is no mystery. But God did not give us control over the complexity of the cosmos. 
He gave us limited control over ourselves, and those whom it is appropriate we care for, children and so forth. We get to choose where we pee, for instance. And to some degree we get to choose where our children pee. What we don’t get to control is who goes to heaven and who doesn’t.
In my twenties, I thought I understood God. I read a book or two and then believed my limited knowledge of God was all-encompassing. I defended my understanding of God with passion and even anger. I’d associated my identity with my answers and defended them as though they were part of my redemption, part of the portfolio I’d eventually show God that might impress Him so He’d let me into heaven. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to believe I don’t know everything about God. And not only that, I’ve had to admit and confess my desire to know everything about God was really about control. God does not give us comprehensive knowledge about all things.
I’ve become very comfortable answering questions by saying “I don’t know the answer to that. God gives us limited information, but here is what He’s chosen to tell us….”
I’ve given this answer to very complicated and contentious questions about the afterlife, about whether people interact with God here on earth, about state sovereignty and too many other issues to talk about.
Do right theological answers matter to me? Absolutely. Do I believe there are right answers to hard theological questions? Of course I do. Do I believe God has given us the answers to all the tough questions? I absolutely do not. I think God has given us limited information, much like a father does His children, giving them more information as they need it for their stage of life. I’d consider earth a kind of infancy, to be honest. I don’t think we are given much.
The issue to me is, then, about trust. Do I trust God? Do I have faith in God? Do I love God?
I often meet people who trust their answers about God, but it doesn’t seem like they trust God. When they but up against the unknown complexities of life, they find security in their own answers. They love their own minds.
G.K. Chesterton said mathematicians go mad, not poets, because mathematicians try to build a bridge across the infinite, while poets swim in the sea.
Job asks of God some very difficult theological questions. His friends attempt to answer Job’s questions, but they get it wrong. They are controlling and assume they can read God’s actions through a theological grid. But they are wrong. When God finally addresses Job’s concerns, God does not answer Job’s questions at all. Instead, God puts on a show of force and power, and humbles Job. God asks Job who stores the snow every winter, who stops the waves from taking over the land. And Job responds by saying that life is too wonderful for him. God simply wanted Job to know that He was trustworthy. God did not want Job to have all the answers. Job wanted control. God had control. God wanted Job to realize He was in control, and wanted Job to find security in that, regardless of his circumstances.
what do you know about descartes’problems of infinite degrees of complexity? You can read about this on the last page of Geometry, Book 3.
Look foward to your response.
can’t entirely get the drift of things here. But the subject is the insert:
In sum, here concerning only sensations and “thoughts” [ideas, entia], “The nature of body consists not in weight, hardness, colour, or the like, but simply in extension.” Moreover, as it is also the case that all existence to infinity is this same extension, there exists nothing but it. Additionally there is only it. Still more, it is susceptible to be reality at the point of one’s drawing lines, i.e., figure which is at once, as such, imaginable and perceived to be imaginable “in a true fashion, that is, real.” Still more, as object, this figurality is calculable, also to infinity. Now this is the mathematical focus of the reasoning Descartes explains in Principles, Pt. One, ch., 68: AT33, p.5. This done, it is possible (also useful and necessary) to grasp something of what is this figurality calculable to infinity, if we are later to see what figure is “imaginable in a true fashion, that is, real.” Here then is this mathematical conception. Taken from Geometry, Third book, Descartes details its characteristic steps, and its essence is infinity=existence=figure=extensio; and all of it is coherent for equations.
“…after having described the curve ACN on the measure of these three [equations] we must [calculate for the three lines according to these equations.]….For the circle whose center is at point I and which passes through point P which is found…, will intersect the curve at the two points C and N. If from these we draw the perpendiculars [he gives them]…and subtract the smaller,…from the greater,…there will remain x, the first of the four required mean proportionals.
“It is easy with this same method to divide an angle into five equal parts, or to inscribe a figure of eleven or thirteen equal sides in a circle, and to find an infinity of other examples of this rule….I have [then]…at the same time given the method of reducing them to an infinity of other different problems, and thus solving each of them in an infinity of ways. Then, besides this, I have constructed all plane problems by the intersection of a circle with a straight line, and all solid problems also by the intersection of a circle with a parabola, and finally in the same way all problems which are only one degree more complex, by making a circle intersect with a line which is only one degree more complex than the parabola; we have only to follow the same method in order to construct all problems to an infinite degree of complexity.”
corrected typo in address