(1) Seems like it would be suspicious to someone not committed to simplicity. It could mean:
(1') Every part of God is as good as it is possible for a part of God to be (i.e., perfect as a part of God)
or
(1'') Every part of God is as good as it is possible for anything to be (i.e., perfect simpliciter )
1' seems consistent with divine mereological complexity, and in any case does not work for the above argument. 1'' allows the argument to go through, but seems to beg the question in favor of divine mereological simplicity.
2 comments:
(1) Seems like it would be suspicious to someone not committed to simplicity. It could mean:
(1') Every part of God is as good as it is possible for a part of God to be (i.e., perfect as a part of God)
or
(1'') Every part of God is as good as it is possible for anything to be (i.e., perfect simpliciter )
1' seems consistent with divine mereological complexity, and in any case does not work for the above argument.
1'' allows the argument to go through, but seems to beg the question in favor of divine mereological simplicity.
Post a Comment