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

[Lucretius]

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.

It’s actually even more simple, I think.

If God had parts, they could in theory be separated.

 

[Wesrock]

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.

It is not about an issue of them existing independently.

 

[Lucretius]

Parts by definition have some kind of independence. Even a radius can exist apart from a circle as a line segment, right?

 

[Wesrock]

Parts by definition have some kind of independence. Even a radius can exist apart from a circle as a line segment, right?

Separability doesn’t feature as an issue in Thomas Aquinas’ arguments. Excepting the substantial form of a rational animal, there’s no claim that a substantial form could exist naturally independent or separately from Prime Matter, and certainly no claim that Prime Matter could exist apart from some form. Same thing with essence and act of existence in creatures. Yet these are considered constituent parts of things, metaphysical composites. Co-principles, not substances in themselves.