Dolezal’s central argument is that if God were composed of parts, he would depend on those parts for his very being. This would mean the parts (or the "composer" who unified them) are ontologically prior to God, which contradicts God’s status as the absolute, self-sufficient First Cause.
This draft explores the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) as articulated in seminal work, God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness . God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Me...
God Without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of Absoluteness I. Introduction Dolezal’s central argument is that if God were
The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) is the classical theological confession that God is "without parts". Unlike created beings, who are "composites" of various parts (matter and form, essence and existence, substance and accidents), God is an absolute, indivisible unity. Historically, this doctrine was a non-negotiable pillar of Christian theism—defended by and the Reformed Scholastics—but it has faced significant challenges in modern theology. God Without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics
II. The Core Thesis: Simplicity as a Condition for Absoluteness
