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
    Anything that is 'first' cannot have any kind of cause — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The First must have no cause of any kind

    Anything that is 'first' cannot have any kind of cause

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Divine Attributes
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Any cause of the First would be prior to itIf something is prior to the First, the First would not truly be firstThe First must have no cause of any kind

    Similar

    There must be a first cause of being.86%The First Being is 'first' in the sense that nothing is prior to it.83%The first being is the first cause of existence to all other beings.82%If X is prior in being to everything other than itself, then X is the ...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: al-farabi-metaphysics
    View source passageHide passage
    Fârâbî’s general strategy is (1) to argue that anything that is “first” must not have any kind of cause, since any such cause would be prior to it and it would not be first, and that it has no privation or potentiality (either of which would imply dependence on something prior); then (2) to infer that since it has no cause it must be simple, i.e., that it is “one” in the sense of not having any of the different kinds of internal composition (e.g., out of matter and form, genus and differentia, o

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective