Very recently I've been thinking about divine simplicity quite a bit and at first it did seem like a solid bit of biblical philosophy to me. But after looking into it more I've found that I in fact disagree with it for not only being unbiblical but also due to the fact that it's derived from the philosophy of man. After looking into eastern orthodoxy I was surprised to learn that they too deny this scholastic definition of God and this has kinda attracted me towards them. The hardest part about giving up divine simplicity was admitting that Aquinas got something wrong. Although I'm a protestant, I've always looked up to him.
Can we have a divine simplicity discussion thread. I wanna talk about why I disagree with it from a biblical basis and see how Catholics, protestants and eastern orthodox might respond or help me understand this theological belief better.
Also, pic related is one of the reasons why I deny divine simplicity but we'll get to that later
If divine simplicity is false then the prime mover argument. If there is a prime mover, then the prime mover is simple; if the prime mover is not simple, then it is not a prime mover.
Cooper Lewis
...
Hunter Wood
I think Orthodoxy doesn't deny divine simplicity, Palamas seems to have agreed with it, what is denied is absolute divine simplicity, which goes as far as saying that God is actus Purus or pure act. The scholastics (under Aquinas at the least) said the latter, Orthodoxy says the former.
Aaron Butler
I still believe in the immovable mover argument but your post does not in any way disprove it.
Connor Brooks
Sorry, I'm not all that intelligent. Could you perhaps explain in more detail what you mean but perhaps without using Latin words? Thanks.
Sebastian Kelly
Don't worry brother, I'm not all that versed in the topic either. Well both orthodoxy and Catholicism teaches that God is simple: which simply means he isn't made of parts, "hear Israel, the lord is one", the things we say about God, that he is omniscient etc is what God is, not what makes him up if you get my drift. God is not omniscience + omnipotence +…, But rather God is one. Now absolute divine simplicity teaches that what we say about God must be God himself, so we must say that God IS good, God IS Merciful, he doesn't process the trait, he is the trait. Now under absolute divine simplicity we need to go further, we can't say that God is Mercy and at the same time say God is Love, otherwise we get God being multiple things and not one absolutely simple thing, so we need to say that all the attributes of God are one and the same. Mercy, Love, Judgement, etc etc are all the same in God. Modern Scholastics agree with this. Protestants are mixed, famous Protestant philosophers like Alvin Plantings and William Lane Craig deny divine simplicity outright for example. Orthodoxy says that God is simple, but not absolutely simple. This is because the essence energy distinction. I could go further but I want to make sure I'm not confusing you and that you understand what I mean.
Xavier Miller
I think I get it. Before you go, may I ask, if God was to, let's say, lose one of these attributes such as love, goodness or mercifulness, would Be cease to be God?
