David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The Monist 80 (4):521-538 (1997)
The paper corrects misrepresentations of Aquinas's understanding of divine simplicity, argues that the reasons he gives for divine simplicity are persuasive ones, and suggests how Aquinas's account of the Trinity can be used to explain how God can be said to exist necessarily. It gives an account of Aquinas's conception of form and individualised form, and shows how Plantinga's criticism of Aquinas's position on divine simplicity rests on a misunderstanding of Aquinas's notion of form. It describes and makes the case for Aquinas's argument that God must be absolutely simply because he is the uncaused cause of all effects, and any real composition in things constitutes an effect. It shows that Brian Davies is mistaken in claiming that Aquinas does not hold God's existence to be logically necessary. It applies Frege's conception of existence to Aquinas's account of God's simplicity and his psychological analogy for the Trinity, in order to explain how God's existence can coherently be said to be logically necessary.
|Keywords||Aquinas divine simplicity forms existence|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
W. Matthews Grant (2003). Aquinas, Divine Simplicity, and Divine Freedom. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 77:129-144.
Christopher Hughes (1989). On a Complex Theory of a Simple God: An Investigation in Aquinas' Philosophical Theology. Cornell University Press.
Graham Oppy (2003). The Devilish Complexities of Divine Simplicity. Philo 6 (1):10-22.
Brian Leftow (2009). Aquinas, Divine Simplicity and Divine Freedom. In Kevin Timpe & Eleonore Stump (eds.), Metaphysics and God: Essays in Honor of Eleonore Stump. Routledge
Norman Kretzmann (1987). Simplicity Made Plainer. Faith and Philosophy 4 (2):198-201.
W. Matthews Grant (2001). Aquinas Among Libertarians and Compatibilists. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 75:221-235.
M. V. Dougherty (2002). Thomas Aquinas and Divine Command Theory. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 76:153-164.
Jeffrey E. Brower (2009). Simplicity and Aseity. In Thomas P. Flint & Michael C. Rea (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology. Oxford University Press 105-28.
John F. Wippel (2003). Norman Kretzmann on Aquinas's Attribution of Will and of Freedom to Create to God. Religious Studies 39 (3):287-298.
Stephen L. Brock (2006). On Whether Aquinas's Ipsum Esse is “Platonism”. Review of Metaphysics 60 (2):269-303.
Ignacio Silva (2013). Thomas Aquinas Holds Fast: Objections to Aquinas Within Today's Debate on Divine Action. Heythrop Journal 54 (4):658-667.
Yann Schmitt (2013). The Deadlock of Absolute Divine Simplicity. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1):117-130.
Mark D. Gossiaux (2003). Thomas Aquinas and Giles of Rome on the Existence of God as Self-Evident. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (1):57-79.
Derek J. Morrow (2006). Aquinas, Marion, Analogy, and Esse. International Philosophical Quarterly 46 (1):25-42.
Anthony Kenny (1980). Aquinas. Hill and Wang.
Added to index2012-03-18
Total downloads41 ( #101,275 of 1,907,521 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #108,237 of 1,907,521 )
How can I increase my downloads?