{"id":3324,"date":"2020-02-27T13:09:07","date_gmt":"2020-02-27T13:09:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2020\/02\/27\/sound-or-unsound\/"},"modified":"2020-02-27T13:09:07","modified_gmt":"2020-02-27T13:09:07","slug":"sound-or-unsound","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2020\/02\/27\/sound-or-unsound\/","title":{"rendered":"Sound or Unsound on Classical Theism? If Sound, then What?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

1) The existence of God is necessary for the existence of creatures: no God, no creatures.<\/span><\/p>\n

2) The existence of God is not sufficient for the existence of creatures: the existence of God does not entail the existence of creatures.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Therefore<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

3) God is really distinct from the act whereby he brings creatures into existence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It is interesting to note that the argument is sound even if God is a contingent being. The premises are commitments of classical theism and are therefore true within classical theism.  The conclusion follows from the premises.  <\/span><\/p>\n

So the argument is sound.  Does it have any consequences for the doctrine of divine simplicity?<\/span><\/p>\n

Addendum (3\/1)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The argument above is an enthymeme and not formally valid as it stands. The addition of the following auxiliary premise ensures formal validity. ('Formally valid' is a pleonasm but useful for paedagogical purposes.)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

2*) If the existence of God is not sufficient for the existence of creatures, then God is really distinct from the act whereby he brings creatures into existence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1) The existence of God is necessary for the existence of creatures: no God, no creatures. 2) The existence of God is not sufficient for the existence of creatures: the existence of God does not entail the existence of creatures. Therefore 3) God is really distinct from the act whereby he brings creatures into existence. … Continue reading “Sound or Unsound on Classical Theism? If Sound, then What?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[141,143],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-divine-simplicity","category-god"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3324","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3324"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3324\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}