tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5719255771429361409..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Mereological perfectionAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-3845494580165505562018-07-10T21:10:19.524-05:002018-07-10T21:10:19.524-05:00(1) Seems like it would be suspicious to someone n...(1) Seems like it would be suspicious to someone not committed to simplicity. It could mean: <br /><br />(1') Every part of God is as good as it is possible for a part of God to be (i.e., perfect <i>as</i> a part of God)<br /><br />or <br /><br />(1'') Every part of God is as good as it is possible for anything to be (i.e., perfect <i>simpliciter</i> )<br /><br />1' seems consistent with divine mereological complexity, and in any case does not work for the above argument.<br />1'' allows the argument to go through, but seems to beg the question in favor of divine mereological simplicity.CWEC Small Grouphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12889866189985583025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-83429165411438754422018-07-09T00:43:56.004-05:002018-07-09T00:43:56.004-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.com