Can God ground his own parts?

One of the motivations behind the *doctrine of divine simplicity* (DDS) is that if God was composed of parts, God would depend upon those parts to exist and hence there would be something more fundamental than the godhead to account for what God is. In order for God to be most absolute, God must be completely simple, lacking any and all composition. Some philosophers have suggested that God himself could be the cause of his own complexity, and hence God's aseity would not be threatened. Classical theistic philosophers in response argue that the idea that God giving rise to his own complexity is incoherent and would require for God to be prior to himself, which is absurd. In response to the classical theistic objection, philosophers have suggested that God could be the *grounds* of his own complexity rather than the cause. Philosopher Matthew Baddorf writes: > [I]t is far from obvious that the only kind of thing that could > satisfactorily explain compresence is an outside sufficient cause. ... > **[The neo-classical theistic] God’s tropes are dependent upon God**. This > suggests another explanation for their compresence: they are > compresent because they are each grounded in God. **This is not a causal > explanation, but it is plausible to think that it is an explanation > nonetheless**. ... This conclusion can also be supported by more general > argument. **It is plausible that tropes are individuated by their > bearers and so cannot exist without them. Or, similarly, it is > plausible to think that tropes cannot exist without their bearers > since they are merely ways their bearers are.** (Baddorf, “Divine Simplicity”, 408–409) Rather than God depending upon his parts, his parts depend on him. > For all x, if x is a proper part of God or x is a property of God, > then x depends on God for its existence. (Fowler, “Simplicity”, 122) Is this position coherent? Further reading on this issue would be appreciated. Thanks!