Thomistica

Syllogism: Absolute Divine Simplicity Negates Essence and Energy Distinction

 

P1. In God, any real distinction must be either relational or intrinsic, since every real distinction is either according to reference to another (relation) or according to what a thing is in itself (absolute).

 

P2. Purely relational distinctions do not compose the divine essence, because relations add no new absolute reality but only an order of origin (for example, paternity and filiation distinguish persons without dividing the essence).

 

P3. Any intrinsic real distinction in God introduces composition, since if two realities are really distinct in the absolute order within one being, that being contains a plurality of intrinsic constituents rather than one utterly simple act of being.

 

P4. EO’s EED posits a real intrinsic distinction between divine essence and divine energies, since the energies are affirmed to be uncreated and truly divine yet not identical with the essence and not merely relations of origin among persons.

 

C1. Thus Eastern Orthodox EED introduces composition in God.

 

P5. Whatever introduces composition in God denies absolute divine simplicity because ADS maintains that God contains no real multiplicity in the absolute order beyond relational opposition.

 

P6. If absolute divine simplicity is denied, divine unity is no longer secured solely by the numerical identity of one utterly simple divine essence.

 

P7. If divine unity is not secured solely by the numerical identity of one simple essence, the metaphysical barrier preventing the three divine persons from being construed as distinct possessors of divinity is impaired.

 

C2. Thus EED weakens the metaphysic grounding of divine unity and tends toward a tri-theistic structure via reductio.

​

​

​

Written by Caden Chumbley