Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Beall's original understanding of the nature of the divine allows for contradictory statements to be true of God, by assuming that parts of reality, such as the Trinity, are ‘glutty’ (namely, what we can say about them is both true and false). Is the divine is the only glutty part of reality, and if so, why? Furthermore, does the glutty nature of the divine undermine its simplicity? Beall argues that God is not mereologically complex, but on his account God is logically and hence, it appears, metaphysically complex.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anna Marmodoro (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: