Is God Simple or Complex?

The word simple is defined as “composed of a single element; not compound,” and is the opposite of complex, which means “consisting of many different and connected parts.”

Which one of the above definitions do you think more accurately describes the nature of God? Is He a single entity void of composition, or does He consist of several different and connected parts?

According to William Lane Craig, “an American analytic philosopher and Christian theologian, apologist, and author" and "Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University and Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology,” God is a simple Being.

The segment below shows Craig addressing Richard Dawkin’s misunderstanding of the word “simple” when applied to God (3:54-4:31):

Craig certainly does not need my approval or blessing, but I cannot help but comment on how accurate his description of God’s simplicity is. Not to mention, this description is virtually identical to the Ramchal’s in the book Derech Hashem:

It is likewise necessary to know that God is absolutely simple, having no parts to Him. At the same time, all types of perfection are present in Him, contained in His Being, without being separate parts of It.

I therefore have genuine difficulty understanding how a person with Craig’s view can nevertheless believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, which states that “The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father, but each is God individually and yet they are together the one true God of the Bible (see Athanasian Creed).” When I reflect on it, the doctrine of the Trinity seems to be advocating a complex conceptualization of God.

It is noteworthy that many Christians explain the enigma of the Trinity as itself being the strongest argument for its validity. Because God is fundamentally unique, it is explained, a viable analogy of His Nature would undermine his Uniqueness. While I have to agree with that, an explanation of God's Uniqueness cannot violate presuppositions of God's Oneness. In other words, there have to be practical limits in describing God, limits which are provided to us in the revelation of His Word (the Torah). Without those limits we are free to describe God in any way that we please, which is of course an untenable position for a believer.

What am I missing? Can somebody please correct me?