21. God's Universal Simplicity and Non-Composition with Creation

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Article 7: God’s Universal Simplicity #

The Inductive Argument: Thomas eliminates six particular kinds of composition found in creatures to conclude that God is altogether simple:

1. No quantitative parts (God is not a body)
2. No matter-form composition
3. No distinction between nature (what a thing is) and individual substance (suppositum)
4. No distinction between essence and existence
5. No composition of genus and difference
6. No composition of substance and accidents

Conclusion: God is in no way (nullo modo) composed—he is simplex omnino.

Pedagogical Structure: The Summa Theologiae orders arguments from particular eliminations to universal simplicity (inductive), whereas the Summa Contra Gentiles shows universal simplicity first then deduces particular cases. The Summa Theologiae is more suited to beginners, as human intellects progress better from less universal to more universal statements.

Five Arguments for Simplicity in the Body of Article 7:

1. Inductive argument: All kinds of composition have been eliminated; therefore God is in no way composed
2. From priority: Everything composed is posterior to its components; God is first (before all else); therefore God cannot be composed
3. From causality: Everything composed requires a cause uniting its parts; God is the first cause with no cause; therefore God cannot be composed
4. From pure act: Every composition involves potentiality and actuality; God is pure act (actus purus) with no potentiality; therefore God cannot be composed
5. From wholeness: In every composite, something belongs to the whole that doesn’t belong to each part; nothing distinct from God can be said of God; therefore God is not composite

Knowledge Through Negation: We know simple things by negating properties of composed things, just as Euclid defines the point as “that which has no parts.” As entities become simpler, negations multiply: body has length, width, and depth; surface lacks depth; line lacks width and depth; point lacks all three. God’s simplicity is similarly known through cumulative negations of all compositions found in creatures.

Article 8: God Does Not Enter Into Composition with Creatures #

Three Historical Errors Refuted:

1. God as the soul of the world (Varro)—pantheistic confusion
2. God as formal principle of all things (Amalric of Bena)
3. God as first matter (David of Dinant—described as “stupidly taught”)

God’s Causal Relations: God relates to creation as:

• Efficient cause (maker)—extrinsically, never becoming identical with what is made
• Exemplar (model)—creatures imitate God but are not intrinsically formed by God
• NOT as formal cause (intrinsic form) or material cause (potentiality)

Key Principle: The first cause rules all things without being mixed with them. God is the being of all things effectively (as cause), not formally (as component).

Key Arguments #

The Problem of Act and Potentiality #

A fundamental error concerning the first cause stems from confusing the order of act and potentiality:

• In some qualified sense: A thing that moves from potentiality to actuality is potentiality before it is actuality in time
• Simply and universally: Act is before potentiality, because only what is already in act can reduce potentiality to act

If one mistakes “simply” for “in some respect,” one concludes potentiality is simply before actuality, making the first cause first matter (pure potentiality)—the opposite of what it should be. This leads to the absurd position that the first cause is the least perfect thing, contradicting the principle that the first being must be most perfect.

God as Pure Act #

Thomas establishes (in Article 1, second argument) that God must be pure act (ipsum actus purus) and in no way in potentiality (nullo modo in potentia). This is derived from the Aristotelian principle in Physics Book 9 that act is prior to potentiality. Since:

• Everything composed involves potentiality-actuality structure
• God is pure act
• Therefore, God cannot be composed

Important Definitions #

Simplicity (Simplicitas) #

• Grammatically: Affirmative term (non-negative prefix), but understood fundamentally through negation of composition
• Metaphysically: Complete absence of any composition whatsoever—God is not “put together” (compositum)
• Theologically: God’s being is identical with his essence; he is ipsum esse (being itself)
• Spiritual: St. Teresa of Avila: “God is altogether simple, and the closer you get to God, the simpler you become”

Key Distinctions Clarified #

Simplex vs. Simplicity in Creatures: In material creatures, composed things (e.g., mixtures of elements) appear more perfect than simple elements. But in immaterial beings (angels), simplicity increases with perfection. This appears to contradict the second objection but is resolved by recognizing that perfection and composition relate differently in material and immaterial realms.

Whole vs. Parts: In every composite thing, something belongs to the whole that doesn’t belong to each part taken individually. In God, every predicate is identical with God himself—there is no distinction between a “part” and the “whole.”

Forma Simplex: Boethius teaches that a simple form cannot be a subject for accidents, since being a subject to accidents requires a potentiality to receive what is not itself. God, as divina substantia forma est (divine substance is form), cannot be a subject.

Examples & Illustrations #

Geometric Progression of Simplicity #

Euclid’s definitions show how simplicity is grasped through accumulated negations:

• Body: Has length, width, depth (three dimensions)
• Surface: Has length, width, but no depth (one negation)
• Line: Has length, but no width or depth (two negations)
• Point: Has no length, width, or depth (three negations)

Yet the point is perfectly real, not less real for being simple. Similarly, God’s infinite perfection is contained in absolute simplicity, not multiplicity.

Healthy vs. Health #

Berquist distinguishes the concrete from the abstract:

• The healthy (concrete): Can be white, a magician, and healthy simultaneously—can have something extraneous to healthiness
• Health itself (abstract): Cannot have whiteness in it (then geometry would be the principle of health—absurd), cannot have anything besides that by which the healthy is healthy

Similarly: That which exists can be white, large, intelligent, etc. But existence itself (ipsum esse) cannot have anything adjoined to it. God is existence itself, therefore can have nothing extraneous to himself.

The Problem Plato and Aristotle Left Unresolved #

Berquist notes the tension:

• Plato: The perfect is the measure of the imperfect (the Good itself is the measure)
• Aristotle: The measure must be known to be used (therefore the virtuous man is the measure)

Problem: God is perfect but not seen; man is seen but not perfect. The Incarnation solves this: Christ is both the perfect measure (God) and a known measure (visible human).

Questions Addressed #

How Can Simplicity Be Known if It Opposes Our Experience? #

Our intellect’s proper object is the sensed or imagined, which is inherently composed. Yet we know simple things by negating composed properties. As Aristotle teaches in De Anima Book 3: “We know simple things by the negation of composed things.” Even geometry must define the point (which cannot be imagined) through negations. Knowledge of God similarly proceeds through cumulative negations.

Does God’s Simplicity Eliminate His Attributes (Wisdom, Justice, etc.)? #

No. Thomas reserves the full answer for Questions 12-13 on knowing and naming God. The distinction between God’s attributes (wisdom, justice, mercy, etc.) is in our way of knowing (modus cognoscendi), not in God’s being. When we know God in the beatific vision, we will see him with a single, simple act of understanding—not multiple attributes.

How Is God “Measure of All Things” If He’s Not Composed Like Proportional Measures? #

Thomas (responding to Objection 2) clarifies: A proportional measure must be homogeneous with what is measured. God is not proportioned to anything. Rather, God is the measure of all things in that each thing has as much being as it approaches (accedit ad) him. This echoes the Platonic principle that the perfect measures the imperfect, but resolves the Aristotelian requirement that the measure be knowable through the Incarnation.

Why Does Thomas Give Five Arguments Here Instead of Three? #

Berquist notes that three arguments typically suffice (humans struggle to hold more than three in mind), but because this article establishes omnino simplex (altogether simple), Thomas emphasizes with five arguments the universal scope of God’s simplicity. This is more pedagogically important than particular kinds of composition.

Notable Quotes and Passages #

“God is altogether simple, and the closer you get to God, the simpler you become.” — St. Teresa of Avila (cited approvingly by Berquist)

“Divina Substantia Forma Est” — Boethius, De Trinitate (cited by Thomas; emphasizes that divine substance is pure form, incapable of being a subject)

“Euclid could be a little more explicit there, because the point does have position, okay?” — Berquist clarifies that the point, unlike the mathematical one (unit of number), has position; hence point and one are both simple but distinguished by position

“You’re being led by the hand, right, through these six articles, and then you’re going to get a thing about the simplicity of God, omnino, altogether universal here, right?” — Berquist on the pedagogical ordering of the Summa Theologiae