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
    Any entity with a prior explanatory ground fails the asei... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Hasker's theory is problematic because the divine nature/soul, which is not God, would be the ultimate reality rather than God.

    Any entity with a prior explanatory ground fails the aseity condition and therefore cannot itself be the ultimate reality.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Ultimate reality must be self-explanatory; if X depends on Y for explanation, X is ontologically derivative from Y.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aseity (self-existence) is the defining characteristic that distinguishes ultimate from non-ultimate reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any explanatory ground external to an entity constitutes a real dependence that violates aseity by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.An entity can have a prior logical ground yet possess aseity if that ground is internal (self-grounding) rather than external.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates metaphysical dependence with logical explanation; something can explain without ontologically sustaining.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some explanatory regresses are benign (circular or necessary truths); not all prior grounds undermine ultimacy.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Trinity1 linked

    Related

    An entity can have a prior logical ground yet possess aseity if that ground is i...Any explanatory ground external to an entity constitutes a real dependence that ...Aseity (self-existence) is the defining characteristic that distinguishes ultima...Hasker's theory is problematic because the divine nature/soul, which is not God,...
    +3 moreShow less
    Some explanatory regresses are benign (circular or necessary truths); not all pr...The claim conflates metaphysical dependence with logical explanation; something ...Ultimate reality must be self-explanatory; if X depends on Y for explanation, X ...

    Details

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