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 One reasonable response to the contradiction is to deny divine simplicity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Divine simplicity is entailed by classical perfect being theology: a composite God would depend on parts, violating aseity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Denying simplicity to resolve apparent contradictions sacrifices explanatory coherence for mere verbal consistency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aquinas, Maimonides, and Avicenna converge on simplicity as the only coherent account of an uncaused first cause.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
The contradiction in P1 arises from applying discursive, creaturely categories to God, not from simplicity itself being false.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Apophatic theology, from Pseudo-Dionysius through Meister Eckhart, holds that apparent contradictions signal the limits of predication, not divine incoherence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
The notion of self-subsistent Being is contradictory to the discursive intellect.
?
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.