One premise. Nine chapters. A complete framework for the nature of reality — derived entirely from logic and evidence, without a single theological assumption imported from the outside.
The logical argument in Infinitely Simple stands in a lineage that runs from Socrates through Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus to the present. Each thinker took the investigation further than the last. Read the full intellectual lineage →
The argument in Infinitely Simple is not deductive from theological premises. It is reductive — proceeding by elimination from what cannot be denied to what must be the case. It proceeds as follows:
This cannot be coherently denied. Even the denial of existence is itself an existing act of denial. The existence of things is the one undeniable starting point.
Everything that exists is temporally, spatially, or compositionally dependent on other things. Every existent is derivative. Nothing within the known universe is self-subsistent.
An infinite chain of derivative existents never grounds itself. If A depends on B, B on C, and so on infinitely — nothing has been explained. The chain floats free, explaining nothing.
A causal loop where every element depends on another in the same loop provides no actual ground. It is a closed system of mutual dependence, none of it self-subsistent.
Not assumed. Derived. By elimination of every alternative. Something must be self-subsistent — existing in itself, from itself, as the ground of all derivative existence.
Effects cannot exceed their total cause. Whatever exists in the effect must have its capacity present in the cause. Life, Consciousness, Love, Intelligence, and Will exist in the universe — therefore they must exist in what grounds it.
This is not theology dressed as philosophy. The attributes of the necessary ground — Life, Consciousness, Love, Intelligence, Will — are derived from the evidence of what exists. Not from scripture, tradition, or faith.
God contains the universe but infinitely exceeds it. Creatures are genuinely other than God while genuinely deriving from and being sustained by God. Neither pantheism nor classical dualistic theism — something more precise than both.
Infinitely Simple engages seriously with the philosophical tradition: Aristotle's unmoved mover, Aquinas's five ways, Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason, Anselm's ontological argument, and contemporary analytic philosophy of religion from Plantinga, Swinburne, and Craig. It does not simply repeat these arguments — it refines and grounds them in six independent scientific convergences that were not available to any of these thinkers.
The result is a framework that is simultaneously more rigorous than classical natural theology and more grounded in contemporary science than most contemporary philosophy of religion manages to be.
"The argument begins with what can be directly observed and proceeds carefully, step by step. Each chapter builds on the last. Nothing is assumed before reason has done its work." — Infinitely Simple: The Foundation
What is the difference between Infinitely Simple and classical natural theology?
Classical natural theology — from Aquinas through contemporary analytic philosophy of religion — derives arguments for God's existence from observation and reason. Infinitely Simple does the same, but grounds the argument in six modern scientific convergences (quantum foundations, consciousness research, systems biology, philosophy of mind, cosmological fine-tuning, mathematical structure) that were not available to earlier thinkers. The logical skeleton is similar to classical versions; the scientific grounding is entirely contemporary.
How does this relate to Aristotle's cosmological argument?
Aristotle's argument from motion — that everything moved has a mover, and this chain must terminate in an unmoved mover — is structurally similar to the argument in Infinitely Simple, which holds that every dependent thing requires a ground, and this chain cannot regress infinitely or loop circularly. The key difference is the Container Principle, which derives the attributes of the necessary ground rather than leaving them unspecified as Aristotle did.
Is Infinitely Simple compatible with Thomism?
In broad strokes, yes — both are committed to a necessary, self-subsistent ground whose existence is derivable by reason from the existence of contingent things, and whose nature involves the fullness of being. The key difference is that Infinitely Simple explicitly derives its framework as panentheistic rather than maintaining the strict divine simplicity of classical Thomism. Creatures are genuinely other than God and genuinely sustained by God — but the relationship is one of participation in the divine Operations rather than strict ontological separation.
Nine chapters. One complete framework. Available now in paperback, hardcover, and eBook.
Order Infinitely Simple → For the Philosopher →