Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A necessary being must be transcendent. — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A necessary being must be transcendent.

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • A necessary being must be causally independent for its existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Spinoza's God or Nature (Deus sive Natura) is a necessary being that is identical with the totality of existence, not transcendent to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a necessary being can be the immanent ground of all things rather than external to them, necessity does not entail transcendence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Causal independence is compatible with immanence, as a being can be self-causing (causa sui) while remaining wholly within the natural order.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inference from causal independence to transcendence illicitly assumes that self-sufficiency requires standing outside the world rather than grounding it from within.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    A necessary being must be causally independent for its existence.Causal independence is compatible with immanence, as a being can be self-causing...If a necessary being can be the immanent ground of all things rather than extern...Spinoza's God or Nature (Deus sive Natura) is a necessary being that is identica...
    +1 moreShow less
    The inference from causal independence to transcendence illicitly assumes that s...

    Similar

    A necessary being is one in whom possible being is sufficient for actu...83%A necessary being must have its existence either from itself or from a...83%A necessary being exists.82%The connection between the essential properties of a necessary being m...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: cosmological-argument
    O'Connor (2008: 92)
    View source passageHide passage
    Although Aquinas was quick to make the identification between God and the first mover or first cause (growing out of his contention that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, such that in philosophy faith seeks understanding, not confirmation), such identification seems to go beyond the causal reasoning that informs the argument (although one can argue that it is consistent with the larger picture of God and his properties that Aquinas paints in his Summae). Some (Rasmussen, O’Connor, Koons) have plowed ahead in developing this stage 2 process by showing how and what properties—simplicity,...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The source passage explicitly states "A necessary being must also be causally independent for its existence and thus transcendent (2008: 92)," directly linking causal independence as a premise supporting transcendence as a conclusion.

    Confidence: High confidence.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit