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
    An uncaused Necessary Being exists whose essence suffices... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An uncaused Necessary Being exists whose essence suffices for its existence

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Contingent (possible) existents derive their existence from a cause
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An infinite regress of causes is impossible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the series of contingent beings must terminate in an uncaused being
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between 'necessary' and 'contingent' existence is a linguistic or logical distinction, not a distinction tracking metaphysical kinds of beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being whose essence 'suffices for' its existence merely relocates the explanatory demand rather than satisfying it, since the essence itself requires explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hume's point stands: whatever we can conceive as existing we can equally conceive as not existing, so necessity cannot be a real property of existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The impossibility of an actual infinite regress of causes is not self-evident and has been coherently denied by thinkers from Aristotle's eternal cosmos to contemporary infinitist metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an infinite causal series is possible, the series as a whole may be self-explanatory without requiring an external uncaused terminus, as Russell argued against Copleston in 1948.
      ?

      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

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation3 linked

    Related

    A being whose essence 'suffices for' its existence merely relocates the explanat...An infinite regress of causes is impossibleContingent (possible) existents derive their existence from a causeHume's point stands: whatever we can conceive as existing we can equally conceiv...
    +4 moreShow less
    If an infinite causal series is possible, the series as a whole may be self-expl...The distinction between 'necessary' and 'contingent' existence is a linguistic o...The impossibility of an actual infinite regress of causes is not self-evident an...Therefore the series of contingent beings must terminate in an uncaused being

    Similar

    There exists something in Nature whose essence it pertains to exist ne...78%The essence of God involves necessary existence76%If God is by definition a necessary being, then necessary existence is...76%It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but more lik...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: abraham-daud
    View source passageHide passage
    Ibn Daud deviates significantly from his predecessors since he does not deduce the existence of God from creation. In fact, as we shall later see, Ibn Daud has little to say on the issue of creation. Instead, his two proofs are based on Aristotle’s theory of motion, which presents a novelty in medieval Jewish thought. The first proof makes use of two theses that were proven in the sections on motion and infinity respectively: firstly, there is no motion without a mover, and secondly, the existen
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

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