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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A second god cannot be a causally sufficient condition (in the strong sense) of the existence of any contingent being, given that a first god is a causally necessary condition of the existence of every other concrete object.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A causally necessary condition and a causally sufficient condition are not mutually exclusive roles that cannot be jointly instantiated by distinct agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aquinas's concurrentism holds that primary and secondary causes can both be fully operative at different causal levels without either negating the other's causal status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If divine concurrence allows creatures to be genuine causes despite God's necessary causal role, a second god could be a sufficient secondary cause while the first remains a necessary primary cause.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The claim equivocates on 'causally necessary condition,' conflating metaphysical dependence with pre-emptive causal exclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz's notion of compossibility demonstrates that multiple sufficient reasons can converge on a single effect without logical contradiction in a shared causal order.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Two omnipotent beings could each supply independently sufficient causal grounds for a contingent being's existence, making neither's sufficiency undermined by the other's necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The first god is a causally necessary condition of the existence of every other concrete object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the first god is a causally necessary condition of the existence of every other concrete object, then no other being can be a causally sufficient condition (in the strong sense) of the existence of any contingent being.
      ?

      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.