In classical theistic and monotheistic theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is simple (without parts).
"Simplicity in this way confers a unique ontological status that many philosophers find highly peculiar.
[3][4] Varieties of this doctrine exist among Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophical theologians, especially during the height of scholasticism.
Its origins may be traced back to ancient Greek thought, finding apotheosis in Plotinus' Enneads as the Simplex.
[5][6][7] Views similar to divine simplicity were held by philosophers such as Plato, Thales and Anaximenes.
Classical statements about divine simplicity can be found in Augustine, Anselm and Thomas Aquinas.
In early Christianity, Philo of Alexandria said that the belief of God as utterly simple was widely held.
[8] One of the earliest mentions of divine simplicity in Christian theology is by Irenaeus (130 – c. 202 AD).
[8] Clement of Alexandria, Basil, and Cyril saw simplicity as preserving the transcendence and perfection of God.
[8] Maimonides, in The Guide for the Perplexed, said: If, however, you have a desire to rise to a higher state, viz., that of reflection, and truly to hold the conviction that God is One and possesses true unity, without admitting plurality or divisibility in any sense whatever, you must understand that God has no essential attribute in any form or in any sense whatever, and that the rejection of corporeality implies the rejection of essential attributes.
Those who believe that God is One, and that He has many attributes, declare the unity with their lips, and assume plurality in their thoughts.
To say that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good is to introduce plurality, if these qualities are separate attributes.
Maimonides also believed that negation is objectionable to the degree that it introduces complexity; God is neither this nor that, and verbal expression fails us.
He develops this idea to show that an entity that is truly one must be free of properties, indescribable, and unlike anything else.
Since God's simplicity does not allow for any structure – even conceptually – divine simplicity appears to entail the following dichotomy: This paradox is articulated by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto in Derech Hashem, who describes the dichotomy as arising from the inability to comprehend absolute unity: God’s existence is absolutely simple, without combinations or additions of any kind.
Indeed the true nature of His essence is that it is a single attribute, (yet) one that intrinsically encompasses everything that could be considered perfection.
[16][17] Duns Scotus affirms that God's nature is not composed of metaphysical properties or parts.
[18] Spatial simplicity is endorsed by most traditional Christian theists, who do not consider God a physical object.
In terms of essence, God is simple as opposed to being made up of form and matter, body and soul, or mind and act.
[25] The concept of divine simplicity as espoused by Thomas Aquinas, was condemned, alongside Thomism in general, in a Patriarchal Synod of 1368 organised by the Patriarch of Constantinople Philotheos I, which also canonized Gregory Palamas & re-affirmed the decision of the ninth ecumenical council on Palamas' teachings of the distinction between God's essence & energies being the dogma for the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[26] Absolute (Thomistic) divine simplicity has been criticized by a number of Christian theologians, including John S. Feinberg, Thomas Morris, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga; in his essay "Does God Have a Nature?
Plantinga concludes, "This way of thinking begins in a pious and commendable concern for God's greatness and majesty and augustness, but it ends in agnosticism and in incoherence.
", Alfred J. Freddoso wrote that Plantinga's critique lacks the depth of analysis to propose jettisoning the theological basis of divine simplicity laid in Christian thought by Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, and others.
[38][39][40] Morris calls it is an idea whose implications are difficult to defend, and whose advantages can be had in other ways.
[41] John S. Feinberg writes, "These philosophical problems plus the biblical considerations raised earlier lead me to conclude that simplicity is not one of the divine attributes.
[43] Jeffrey Brower and Michael Bergmann present a truthmaker defense of divine simplicity.
Yann says, "The minimal truthmaker requirement can then be assumed without any contradiction with divine simplicity.
"[19] Writers such as Herman Bavinck and Louis Berkhof have argued that the doctrine of divine simplicity is affirmed by the Epistle of John, since its author seems to identify God with love[46] and light.
[48] Theologians such as Charles Caldwell Ryrie have argued that divine simplicity underscores the scriptural view of God's self-existence.
This view of divine simplicity was shared with critics of Muslim philosophical writers such as Ibn Taymiyyah.