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)
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)