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

[OrbisNonSufficit]

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

I see. Is it part by real distinction though? I thought that this would apply for logical distinction more so than real one (akin to God’s omnipotence and God’s omnibenevolence).

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.

Well I think that this does get solved by parts of logical and real distinction… but as I said I am far from expert here. I understand there is real distinction between my anger and me or between my love and me… between my hand and other parts of me. But height is something that not only needs other parts to exist or be observed, but something that is entirely dependent on their attributes hence I think it is more of a logical observation than my part. Though I am not too acquainted with Thomistic explanations of Divine Simplicity, so that might be wrong alltogether.

 

[Meng]

I see. Is it part by real distinction though? I thought that this would apply for logical distinction more so than real one (akin to God’s omnipotence and God’s omnibenevolence).

This doesn’t seem to make sense, though. To say that 2 things are logically/conceptually distinct is to say that they refer to the same thing in reality. The most common example would be H2O and water. You can substitute all uses of “water” with “H2O” and the meaning wouldn’t be lost.

But this seems absurd when applied to height. To say that you and your height are only conceptually distinct would mean that it was your height who typed your message, or it was your height who ate your breakfast.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

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

Which argument do ’ many Catholics’ make exactly?

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 one? Do ‘many catholics’ make this argument?

Happy to clarify about the little green sprouts once I understand which argument ‘many catholics’ are making

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This doesn’t seem to make sense, though. To say that 2 things are logically/conceptually distinct is to say that they refer to the same thing in reality.

Oh i see. If that’s the definition, then I guess I understand your point. I’ll wait for someone who can address your points better, but this might be a good discussion.

or it was your height who ate your breakfast

Might explain why I didn’t get any. Well that just proves I am not my height.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

This doesn’t seem to make sense, though. To say that 2 things are logically/conceptually distinct is to say that they refer to the same thing in reality. The most common example would be H2O and water. You can substitute all uses of “water” with “H2O” and the meaning wouldn’t be lost.

H2O is water. The question is what form it takes, liquid, steam or solid.

 

[kapp19]

I think I understand your argument. I think you did not advert to the essence/existence distinction in circles.

Circles don’t have to exist really; just like a man does not have to exist really. Man has two essential parts - rationality, and animality. Angels have rationality only, but as a composite of essence and existence. Circles just have essence and existence. Nothing actually circular (or physical) has to exist. So your argument utterly fails.

-K

 

[Wesrock]

A circle can’t exist in reality without a cause. Reasons include its physical and metaphysical composition, among other things. And there’s no claim that the composition is an issue “if the parts of composed things could exist apart from each other…”

 

[Macino]

A composite does not explain itself. A composite is explained by its parts.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

A composite does not explain itself. A composite is explained by its parts.

God is not a composite though
Trinity does not = composite

 

[Wesrock]

Meng:

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.

Simplicity is a dogma of the Church.

 

[Macino]

The Trinity is a statement of relationships not parts. The Trinity is a matter of revelation- not logic.

 

[porthos11]

Divine Simplicity is right up there with God’s eternity and infinity.

A car has parts. A tie rod is a part. A piston is a part. Neither of these parts are the car. The car has its own substance (philosophical) and each part has its own substance (philosophical). Neither of these parts share the substance (philosophical) of the car.

If God had parts, then God’s substance would be composed of things that are less than God, things that are not infinite (because one part would not be the other part, and the other part would not be the first part; each part would have its own substance which then means each could not be infinite; no number of finite parts could comprise an infinite Being). There would then be limits within the divine Substance, which is impossible for God.

 

[AlNg]

With reference to Divine Simplicity, something possibly related came up on another thread:
Here is part of the argument of Photius on the Holy Spirit (full treatise in “On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit”):

“And why should the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son as well as from the Father? For if His procession from the Father is perfect and complete - and it is perfect, because He is perfect God from perfect God - then why is there also a procession from the Son? The Son, moreover, cannot serve as an intermediary between the Father and the Spirit because the Spirit is not a property of the Son. If two principles, two sources, exist in the Divinity, then the unity of the Divinity would be destroyed… If the Father is the source of the Son, who is the second source of the Spirit, then the Father is both the immediate and mediated source of the Holy Spirit!”
So Photius says: "If two principles, two sources, exist in the Divinity, then the unity of the Divinity would be destroyed… " Would that also mean that the Divine Simplicity would be destroyed (if there were 2 sources or principles existing in God)?

 

[Macino]

In order for anything to be real, it must exist somewhere. Where does the substance of a refrigerator exist?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Throughout history people have proclaimed various answers to questions of this nature and it never cease to amaze me. Why do people think that we can reach an answer to such a question using only our intellect?

 

[Macino]

Alright, I’ll answer for you. The substance of a refrigerator is an idea. All ideas reside only in minds. The ultimate mind is God’s. The substance of a refrigerator is an idea that also resides in the mind of God. Platonic forms are only ideas, but because they reside in the mind of God they have uncaused substance.

 

[neophyte]

A circle can’t exist in reality without a cause.

I was just thinking that circles don’t exist at all. “Circle” is an abstract principle, you can have a paint mark in the shape of a circle, or a group of objects arranged in a circle, but you can’t have a raw circle any more than you can have a raw “1”.

I’m also not convinced that diameter is part of circle, or, even better, sphere. Sphere isn’t diameter plus something else.

Oh! Except that circle is the intersection of sphere and plane, which implies that there are parts of sphere that aren’t on that intersection, which means that sphere (even as an abstract principle) has parts. Right?

You can tell that I’m not even an amateur at this.

However, since God isn’t an abstract principle, perhaps (as has been said) we should set the circle bit aside. Getting sidetracked by a category error is unproductive. If it’s a category error at all. Like I said, not even an amateur.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

A circle can’t exist in reality without a cause.

I was just thinking that circles don’t exist at all. “Circle” is an abstract principle, you can have a paint mark in the shape of a circle, or a group of objects arranged in a circle, but you can’t have a raw circle any more than you can have a raw “1”.

It could exist as an accident of a thing in reality. For example, lets say you carved a piece of wood into the shape of a circle. In Aristotlean terms, the substance you have is the piece of wood. It’s just an accident of that thing-of-wood that it is a circle/has circularity. You could apply this to graphite or ink or paint or metal or whatever material is there. A circle can also exist mentally.

But going back to the OP’s point, he seemed to understand the issue with composition as if the issue was that the parts could, in theory, exist independently. But that’s not how it was understood at all. St. Thomas for example rejects the notion that Prime Matter could exist in any way on its own apart from form, but that doesn’t mean that the “thick matter” we’re familiar with isn’t constituted by both prime matter and form, and that such a composition is not Simple.

 

[Macino]

Divine simplicity means not made of parts. God is not a physical being and is uncaused. God is a different reality. Divine simplicity only signifies that God is a different reality besides a caused reality. It means you cannot comprehend God’s reality.

 

[StudentMI]

OP, I think you need to go back to the drawing board and study Thomistic philosophy a bit more.