Modal Collapse, Still Valid?

[Jonaitis]

Brothers,

How do we defend the doctrine of divine simplicity without falling into a modal collapse? I want to hear your best arguments. I recently listened to a podcast by Ryan Mullins that really got me questioning the honesty of this discussion among some of the prominent modern proponents, like James Dolezal. I want you to listen to it yourself, and tell me what Mullins is missing.

Divine Simplicity and Modal Collapse, Still Valid, Always Has Been

Furthermore, I have yet to hear a good argument that properly defends divine simplicity without inevitably falling into panentheism. It seems like a self-defeating argument for classical theism.

 

[QvQ]

First I am not a scholar and this concept is new to me. So I may be talking out of turn.
All things, actualized, unactualized exist within the power of God's Will. God doesn't actualize all of the possibilities that exist, at least not within man's scope but all possibilities exist and therefore are available to God according to His Will.
Divine Simplicity is the nature of God. God expresses Himself through His Will, actualizing possibilities through His Will.
I am a being. I have a nature, basic attributes. I write words to express myself. I am the word in the sense of creating using necessary words out of all possible words. I am creating or actualizing possibilities, all of which exist.
The arrangement of the words, the creation, actualizing or even creating possibilities does not in any way change the nature of my being, my basic attributes.
If a demon is required, then I can create a demon, but the attributes of my creation are not necessarily the attributes of myself The demon is merely an expression of possibilities, if a demon is necessary to my creation.
JMHO, if I understand the argument.