Why Catholics are WRONG about Divine Simplicity (because it's unnecessary)

[Meng]

I’ve heard before from Catholics like Edward Feser that Divine Simplicity is what safeguards the supremacy of God.

The reasoning is that if God is metaphysically composed, then there must be something prior to him to keep his parts together, meaning that he wouldn’t be the most ultimate being. Which is why he can’t be composed.

The problem is, this argument doesn’t work. For starters, there are parts that cannot exist without each other, like the circle, its radius, and its diameter.

Another point is that if this composition is necessary, then there’s no need for something else to explain the parts being together, since the composite explains itself the same way God explains himself.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Yeah, actually we’re not. Could you PLEASE make this a question? You seem to be intentionally antagonistic. This makes it very difficult to have a dialogue with you, because you are not considering us equals.

 

[AlNg]

I’ve heard before from Catholics like Edward Feser that Divine Simplicity is what safeguards the supremacy of God.

i don’t see Jews, Moslems, or Jehovah’s witnesses agreeing that the Trinity is a sterling example of Divine Simplicity.

 

[Meng]

I’m really not trying to be antagonistic. But sure, I can phrase it as a question.

Why is Divine Simplicity a necessity if the necessity of a metaphysical composite can explain its existence as a composite?

PS: This is assuming that you take the view of many Catholics that Divine Simplicity is necessary to safeguard the supremacy of God. If you don’t take that view, then we’re in agreement

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

The reasoning is that if God is metaphysically composed, then there must be something prior to him to keep his parts together, meaning that he wouldn’t be the most ultimate being. Which is why he can’t be composed.

This is not what Catholics believe.

Catholics believe God is first and last, God is the ultimate substance of being.

I am not sure what you are reading but I would suggest the catechism of the catholic church to learn what we believe.

Sure there are ‘out there’ hypotheses expounded by Catholics and non Catholics alike,
This is no way makes them correct

This is the definition of simplicity

Term​

SIMPLICITY OF GOD

Definition​

The absence of any composition or divisibility in God. According to the Fourth Lateran and First Vatican Councils, God is an “absolutely simple substance or nature” (Denzinger 800). His simplicity is absolute. In him there is no composition of any kind, of substance and accidents, of essence and existence, of nature and person, of power and activity, of genus and specific difference. The theological basis of divine simplicity is that God is pure actuality, which is incompatible with any kind of composition.

God is not a being, we are beings, God is the substance of being. God is what being is

 

[kapp19]

There can’t be circularity without the parts of circularity. Granted. So what? Why does it follow that a definition or abstracted concept implies that Divine Simplicity is not essential to Divinity? (Is that your issue? It’s not entirely clear to me.)

The key is essence and existence. To be a circle is not the same as existing as a circle. It’s not that way with God.

 

[Meng]

This is not what Catholics believe.

What I was saying in the passage that you quoted was that this was the argument given by Catholics for why God cannot be composed, not that Catholics themselves believe that God is composed

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

like the circle, its radius, and its diameter.

Diameter is not part of the Circle. It may be a property or value stemming from the existence of the Circle but that’s it. Diameter does not really exist- it only exists logically which is in line with Divine Simplicity.

Another point is that if this composition is necessary, then there’s no need for something else to explain the parts being together, since the composite explains itself the same way God explains himself.

Even if that were true, that does not prove Divinr Simplicity does not apply. It just makes it unnecessary.

 

[Meng]

There can’t be circularity without the parts of circularity. Granted. So what? Why does it follow that a definition or abstracted concept implies that Divine Simplicity is not essential to Divinity? (Is that your issue? It’s not entirely clear to me.)

I think you misunderstood me. I was just using the circle as an example of parts that cannot exist apart from each other. That wasn’t my full point, though

My full point was that a composite could be a necessary being and could thus explain itself (just like how Catholics suppose that God, being the necessary being, explains himself), without the need for something external to keep the composite existing

Meaning that the standard arguments for why God must be absolutely simple fail

 

[Meng]

Diameter is not part of the Circle. It may be a property or value stemming from the existence of the Circle but that’s it.

A property is a part. It’s a metaphysical part.

Even if that were true, that does not prove Divinr Simplicity does not apply. It just makes it unnecessary.

That’s really all I was trying to prove. I didn’t argue that it was false, but rather that it’s unnecessary

And by the way, that’s not a small claim to make. A huge divide between theistic philosophers is on this issue of Divine Simplicity. Many Catholics have used the argument that God cannot be a composite, which is what I’m arguing against

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

What I was saying in the passage that you quoted was that this was the argument given by Catholics for why God cannot be composed, not that Catholics themselves believe that God is composed

No, you are quoting some hypothesis from some person who probably hates brussel sprouts but this does not apply to what the Magisterium teaches.

I’ve heard before from Catholics like Edward Feser that Divine Simplicity is what safeguards the supremacy of God.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

That’s really all I was trying to prove.

Then we aren’t wrong even if you prove that. Thread title is misleading.

A property is a part. It’s a metaphysical part.

Alright. But diameter is not real. It is logical part but you can’t say that circle has N parts and those are radius, diameter etc.

What is circle? Circle is group of points that are close enough to certain point. Do those points each have diameter? No, points can’t do that hence Circle has no diameter as a property even (I made a mistake back there).

 

[Meng]

No, you are quoting some hypothesis from some person who probably hates brussel sprouts but this does not apply to what the Magisterium teaches.

Brussell sprouts??? Huuuh?

And no, I never claimed that the magisterium specifically taught this argument. What I’m claiming is that the standard argument for why Divine Simplicity is a must have for God’s existence fails

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

What I’m claiming is that the standard argument for why Divine Simplicity is a must have for God’s existence fails

Fair enough but it may seem like standard argument to you only… I have never heard that before.

 

[Meng]

Then we aren’t wrong even if you prove that. Thread title is misleading.

I guess when I said “Catholics are wrong about the Trinity” I meant the vast body of Catholic thinkers who use this very argument to establish Absolute Divine Simplicity. But I guess you’re right. I’ll just change it.

Alright. But diameter is not real. It is logical part but you can’t say that circle has N parts and those are radius, diameter etc.

No, it is a real part. Yes, it’s a non-physical part, and yes, a circle can’t exist without its diameter, but there is a real distinction between a circle and its diameter.

It would be absurd to say that a diameter and a circle are the exact same thing.

And even if my circle example doesn’t work (because this is rather trivial and I don’t want to get into this), it is generally understood by Thomists that there really are some parts that can’t exist without each other, like essence and existence. An essence cannot exist without its existence, but they are really distinct from each other. Prime matter cannot exist on its own without being informed by some substantial form, but they really are distinct from one another, hence composition. Potency could not exist in any way apart from act, yet act and potency are really distinct from one another, and a being with act and potency is taken to be a composite of act and potency

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Brussell sprouts??? Huuuh?

It is an example that one catholic who writes a book, who is not the Magisterium , does not speak for all.

And no, I never claimed that the magisterium specifically taught this argument. What I’m claiming is that the standard argument for why Divine Simplicity is a must have for God’s existence fails

Ok do you understand God is not a being. You, me, my big bitey dog, the mosquito annoying me, angels protecting me, demons annoying me, we are all beings. We are all beings created by God.
Something had to come before us to create us. Make sense?

God as per my quote

SIMPLICITY OF GOD

Definition​

The absence of any composition or divisibility in God. According to the Fourth Lateran and First Vatican Councils, God is an “absolutely simple substance or nature” (Denzinger 800). His simplicity is absolute. In him there is no composition of any kind, of substance and accidents, of essence and existence, of nature and person, of power and activity, of genus and specific difference. The theological basis of divine simplicity is that God is pure actuality, which is incompatible with any kind of composition.

God is not a being, we are beings, God is the substance of being. God is what being is

God is the substance of being, God is being itself, God is not A being.

 

[Meng]

It’s standard when it comes to Divine Simplicity debates. My bad. I should have made that clear

 

[Meng]

It is an example that one catholic who writes a book, who is not the Magisterium , does not speak for all.

I didn’t mean to aay that the Magisterium made this argument, but that many Catholics do when debating Divine Simplicity.

I don’t really know how the rest of your post was relevant to my argument. Maybe you could clarify that for me?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

No, it is a real part. Yes, it’s a non-physical part, and yes, a circle can’t exist without its diameter, but there is a real distinction between a circle and its diameter.

It would be absurd to say that a diameter and a circle are the exact same thing.

In reality, diameter is observation of Circle rather than it’s part. For example my height is not my part. It is something that you can observe in myself but only logically. Likewise it would be absurd to say that height and me are the same thing.

it is generally understood by Thomists that there really are some parts that can’t exist without each other, like essence and existence. An essence cannot exist without its existence, but they are really distinct from each other. Prime matter cannot exist on its own without being informed by some substantial form, but they really are distinct from one another, hence composition. Potency could not exist in any way apart from act, yet act and potency are really distinct from one another, and a being with act and potency is taken to be a composite of act and potency

I am quite the beginner in those discussions (actually I jumped in just because you used Circle analogy and as a guy who had to study math more than he liked to it felt intriguing to me), but what exactly is your point? Not trying to be offensive I am just not smart enough to understand what does this imply in connection to the circle analogy I guess.

It’s standard when it comes to Divine Simplicity debates. My bad. I should have made that clear

Might be. I have some things about Divine Simplicity and read some threads about it, but fact I haven’t encountered it doesn’t mean it can’t be common. Seems weird to actually defend Divine Simplicity like that, at least to me… but then again as I said, I am far from expert.

 

[Meng]

In reality, diameter is observation of Circle rather than it’s part. For example my height is not my part.

Actually, your height is a part. It’s an accident or a property that adheres in an individual substance (you).

but what exactly is your point? Not trying to be offensive I am just not smart enough to understand what does this imply in connection to the circle analogy I guess.

The circle analogy wasn’t supposed to be my main point, but I brought it up because many people argue that (for example) if part X and part Y could exist apart from each other, then there has to be something which explains why they are together. What I’m saying is that, even if that’s true, it could still terminate in something that is still a composition, just with parts that could not exist apart from each other.

Now, Thomist Catholics would disagree, and they would take it a bit further by saying that even if the parts couldn’t exist apart from each other, they’d still have to be explained by something external. That’s what I’m arguing against