Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A necessary being must be transcendent.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
A necessary being must be causally independent for its existence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.