Thursday, July 5, 2018

Mereological perfection

  1. Every part of God is perfect.

  2. Only God is perfect.

  3. So, every part of God is God.

  4. So, God has no proper parts (parts that aren’t himself).

  5. So, divine (mereological) simplicity is true.

2 comments:

Philip Rand said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kolten Ellis said...

(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.