Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Any entity with a prior explanatory ground fails the aseity condition and therefore cannot itself be the ultimate reality.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
An entity can have a prior logical ground yet possess aseity if that ground is internal (self-grounding) rather than external.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates metaphysical dependence with logical explanation; something can explain without ontologically sustaining.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Ultimate reality must be self-explanatory; if X depends on Y for explanation, X is ontologically derivative from Y.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Aseity (self-existence) is the defining characteristic that distinguishes ultimate from non-ultimate reality.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42