Against the Divine Simplicity: Craig contra Aquinas

[polytropos]

By the way, substance is not the same kind of concept of lightness. Lightness/heaviness are relational and relative terms; something is light or heavy in relation and relative to something else. Substance defines what a thing is in itself, indepently of anything else. If there was only one thing in the universe it would be neither heavy nor light; but it would still have some substantial form. All philosophers accept this distinction because it’s quite basic; even those analytic philosophers who reject metaphysics understand that there is a significant difference between relative terms from self-referential terms.

To put it differently, lightness and heaviness are not strictly accidents but are relational Cambridge properties that don’t affect the whatness of a thing. As Innoruk says, they are not inherent properties. Likewise, God’s knowledge of creation is does not change his whatness or essence because it is strictly relational. So if Innoruk is consistent, his objection in post #2 fails.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Simplicity or complexity are not inherent properties of an object.

Then you might as well argue that colour is not an inherent property of an object (has no basis in or from it) but rather an invention that is spontaneously fabricated and superimposed by the human mind on to things (but then where does the mind even get the idea of colours from?).

Moreover, you are begging the question and demonstrating my point: we are in thought aware of the concept of simplicity while simultaneously capable of recognizing that simplicity itself does not perfectly exist in any material substance given to our senses; notwithstanding, unlike your proposition, it is NOT nonsense to claim this or that object is simpler or more complex than some other.

These terms reflect the relationship of the object and the mental capacity of the observer.

But the relationship of the object to what, exactly ? You can’t say there is a real relationship !] that exists between things themselves (i.e., based on inherent properties or characteristics of those things), then proceed to try to throw that objective basis into the human mind (or, actually, imagination- because it is dealing with a baseless fabrication or invention on your view) and thus dissociate the object’s (only apparent) properties from objective reality as if it were a completely unsubstantiated fiction. You just admitted that there is something actually about the things themselves that lends them to being properly called more or less simple and complex at least in relation to each other, which is exactly what I said is the basis in objective reality for the concept of simplicity in the first place.

It is exactly like to say that an object is “light” or “heavy”.

Are you seriously trying to deny that bodies of themselves do not actually possess greater or lesser mass???

To be light or heavy are not inherent properties of the object,

Absurd. So what is it then? Is my mind blowing mass into objects such that it seems - all Matrix like - that they actually possess something of itself independent of my mind? Can I be like Keanu Reeves and just realize that these objects are really just fictions that do not possess any real property called mass and, therefore, I can manipulate them with my mind and thus break free from the shackles of reality?

these categories simply reflect the relationship of the object and power / strength of person who attempts to lift it.

Oh good grief.