User profile

Introduction

A fashion blog is said to be the best way of approach for the online traders to generate more number of frequent and related fashion content for their site. The doctrine of divine simplicity has a number of crucial implications, which are, accordingly, also essential to classical theism. And thats it. The suggestion that divine simplicity is incompatible with divine freedom thus rests on a tendency to attribute to God anthropomorphic qualities that are precisely what the doctrine of divine simplicity denies of Him. I guess for me the bottom line is that until there are some real laws to follow we will have these discussions. In that case, either the external principle itself (or perhaps some yet further principle) would have to be simple, and thus ultimate, and thus the truly divine reality; or there is no simple or non-composite first principle, and thus no metaphysically ultimate reality, and thus nothing strictly divine. Again, this does not speak directly to the issue Bill raises, but it does illustrate how, as Davies emphasizes, properly to understand divine freedom we have to avoid anthropomorphism. We might also emphasize a point that, while somewhat tangential to the aspect of divine freedom Bill Vallicella is concerned with, is still crucial to understanding that freedom and very much in the spirit of Davies approach. More could be said in response to the claim that divine simplicity and freedom and incompatible. Divine simplicity is affirmed by such Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers as Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes. It is the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church, affirmed at the fourth Lateran council and the first Vatican council, and the denial of which amounts to heresy. For the first time Ive attempted to get a season ahead and so I have been sewing all things autumnal and festive since last January. Now the classical arguments for God as first cause or first principle of the world (by which I mean those developed within classical philosophy, whether Neo-Platonic, Aristotelian, or Thomistic or otherwise Scholastic) are, when properly understood, precisely arguments to the effect that the world of composite things - of compounds of act and potency, form and matter, essence and existence, and so forth - could not possibly exist even in principle were there not something non-composite, something which just is Pure Actuality, Subsistent Being Itself, and absolute Unity. There is also to be considered the Scholastic distinction between that which is necessary absolutely and that which is necessary only by supposition. Similarly, it is not absolutely necessary that God wills to create just the world He has in fact created, but on the supposition that He has willed to create it, it is necessary that He does. For example, it is not absolutely necessary that I write this blog post - I could have decided to do something else instead - but on the supposition that I am in fact writing it, it is necessary that I am. For example, as I explained in the earlier post on divine simplicity, Gods creating the universe (or just Socrates for that matter) is what Barry Miller (following the lead of Peter Geach) calls a Cambridge property of God, and the doctrine of divine simplicity does not rule out Gods having accidental Cambridge properties. The difference between classical theism on the one hand and various modern and popular conceptions of God on the other has been a central theme of many previous posts - of, for example, several posts dealing with divine simplicity (e.g. here and here) and of my series of posts on the dispute between Aristotelian-Thomistic (A-T) metaphysics and Intelligent Design theory. Why is divine simplicity regarded by classical theists as so important? One reason is that in their view, nothing less than what is absolutely simple could possibly be divine, because nothing less than what is absolutely simple could have the metaphysical ultimacy that God ...