Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Aquinas, Maimonides, and Avicenna converge on simplicity as the only coherent account of an uncaused first cause.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Simplicity may be incoherent: how can a simple being possess distinct divine attributes (justice, mercy, knowledge) without composition?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
These thinkers disagree significantly on simplicity's scope—Avicenna's essence-existence distinction suggests composition Aquinas rejects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A simple, unchanging being cannot have knowledge of changing contingent facts without composition or potentiality, contradicting simplicity doctrine.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Composition requires explanation: any entity with parts needs a cause explaining why those parts unite rather than remain separate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An uncaused cause cannot depend on external explanation, so internal composition would require self-explanation, creating infinite regress.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aquinas, Maimonides, and Avicenna explicitly identify simplicity as necessary to avoid the first cause being contingent on its own components.
?
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.