The Paradox of Multiplicity in Divine Simplicity

According to many Aristotelian philosophers, all bodies have the inseparable property of motion and it does not proceed from the nature of bodies themselves and thus motion demands an external source or a prime mover. The series of moving causes must stop at an immovable object that moves everything else to avoid an infinite regress of movers. This first mover is God. Since the transition from non-existence to existence is a form of motion and motion requires matter then God must be immaterial and eternal while all things created by it are material and in motion. God is free from matter and therefore is free from motion and therefore cannot change and therefore is pure act (actus purus) and also therefore God must be completely simple as God is not made of parts.

Now the question is in regards to creation, how can the many be created by one or how can something like God who is completely simple create multiplicity or how can a single cause have multiple effects. When it comes to creation, the cause can have various powers as I can do multiple actions or the cause may use various means to produce various effects. However, when it comes to the first cause, God, this cannot be the case since he does not have various powers under divine simplicity.  The multiple attributes of God are only through a virtual distinction rather than being real attributes to avoid God being composed of parts. This means that it only appears to creation that God has multiple attributes but in reality it is one pure act.

I was reading “The Development of Metaphysics in Persia” by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal and in his study of the philosopher Ibn Miskawayh, the Persian provides a possible solution. While our argument of God was Aristotelian, an argument can be made from a Neoplatonic paradigm to solve this dilemma of a simple God causing multiplicity. If this is the only answer that can solve the dilemma then put forth that Aristotelian metaphysics must lead to Neoplatonism. The answer of the dilemma may be that God only created only one thing which led to the creation of another. This one thing may be known as the logos of God if you are Philo of Alexandria or Justin Martyr or you may call it the first intellect if you are Al Kindi, or it may be known as the Demiurge (nous).

Now I have a possible objection to the Neoplatonic solution, if the One or God who is simple creates the Logos of the First principle or Demiurge, regardless if this causation is eternal or not, the result should still be a simple being since it has been established simple beings only create simple things. If the Logos is simple then whatever it creates should also be simple even if the Logos is a lesser degree divine or exactly equal to God. If it is less divine, the emanation of the Logos should be less divine than the Logos and each further emanation should be continually less divine but each should still be simple as only simple beings cause simple things. Therefore, I do not see how multiplicity arrives. The common rebuttal I have seen to this is that the process of emanation might be thought of not as a simple being creating another simple being, but as the “overflowing” of the One’s goodness. This overflowing gives rise to a multiplicity of forms, each of which is a distinct, though less perfect, reflection of the One. However, the solution of emanation simply pushes the problem back a step without truly solving it. If the One creates the Logos, which then creates the world, why could not there be another entity beyond the One that created it? This leads to an infinite regress, which the original argument sought to avoid. Furthermore, it is unclear how a simple, singular entity can give rise to a diverse and complex universe, even through a process of emanation of an “overflowing” but perhaps I am misunderstanding it. Either way The notion of divine simplicity and the resultant theological complexities it engenders deviate from Biblical principles for Christians and Jews, as well as from Quranic teachings for Muslims. For more arguments against divine simplicity such as modal collapse and a better understanding of God’s attributes in relation to His essence in Islam, read my other blog post titled, “Overview of Athari Metaphysics” and “Unveiling the Divine: Duns Scotus vs Aquinas on God’s Attributes”.