[knightoffaith]

>Right, and I thought Aquinas' take was that he must be capable of doing otherwise, but doesn't.

Yep, that's right.

>are they countable?

Spinoza doesn't specify.

But yep, in principle other attributes could be perceived---they are perceived, for example, by God for Spinoza.

[082349872349872]

> Yep, that's right.

That's another reason to introduce the maximal and minimal: those def'ns would still go through even with an Aquinas-style god.

(and they yield an irreligious 1=3 trinitarian argument: if C takes a god to its maximal creation, and G takes a creation to its minimal god, then CG and GC are not necessarily the identity, but we do necessarily have C = CGC and G = GCG)

[082349872349872]

noting in passing; a possible influence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#One