Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Classical theism, from Aquinas through the Thomistic tradition, holds that God is absolutely simple and cannot be a composite of parts.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
God appears to have distinct attributes (justice, mercy, knowledge, power); pure identity of all attributes seems conceptually incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A God with no internal distinctions cannot explain how He sustains a composite, differentiated creation without composition Himself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Divine simplicity makes it mysterious how God can have knowledge of multiple distinct truths without internal multiplicity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If God has parts, those parts would be ontologically prior to God, making God dependent on components rather than maximally independent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Composition entails potential for division or dissolution; an absolutely perfect being cannot have this vulnerability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Divine simplicity preserves God's aseity (self-sufficiency) and explains why all divine attributes are identical to God's essence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.