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
    Concrete occasions of love deserve to count as divinity b... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Concrete occasions of love deserve to count as divinity because they are triply ultimate.

    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.Concrete occasions of love are metaphysically ultimate because they are the efficient and final cause of the universe.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Concrete occasions of love are axiologically ultimate because they are the best of things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Concrete occasions of love are soteriologically ultimate because they are deeply fulfilling.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Metaphysical ultimacy requires necessary existence and aseity, which contingent occasions of love, being temporally bounded events, cannot possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Whitehead's own process theology distinguishes God's primordial nature from creaturely occasions precisely because occasions lack the eternal envisagement of possibilities required for efficient causation of the whole.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Axiological ultimacy entails a standard of value that transcends and grounds particular instances, so love-occasions cannot be both the measure and the measured without vicious circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Classical theists from Aquinas to Leibniz argue that goodness must be grounded in a being whose essence just is goodness, not in contingent relational events that merely instantiate it.
      ?

      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

    2 topics

    Virtue Ethics2 linkedCausation1 linked

    Related

    Axiological ultimacy entails a standard of value that transcends and grounds par...Classical theists from Aquinas to Leibniz argue that goodness must be grounded i...Concrete occasions of love are axiologically ultimate because they are the best ...Concrete occasions of love are metaphysically ultimate because they are the effi...
    +3 moreShow less
    Concrete occasions of love are soteriologically ultimate because they are deeply...Metaphysical ultimacy requires necessary existence and aseity, which contingent ...Whitehead's own process theology distinguishes God's primordial nature from crea...

    Similar

    Concrete occasions of love literally constitute divinity present in th...91%Concrete occasions of love are soteriologically ultimate because they ...83%Concrete occasions of love are metaphysically ultimate because they ar...83%Concrete occasions of love are axiologically ultimate because they are...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: god-ultimates
    View source passageHide passage
    John Bishop and Ken Perszyk (2016, 2017) propose a panentheism they call a “euteleological conception of divinity” (model 22 here), on which (1) divinity is the property or activity of being the supreme good (“eu” in “euteleological”) and (2) realizing this property or activity is the point (“telos” or final cause) of the universe. In addition—inspired by an unusual kind of efficient causation called “axiarchism” on which final causes can function as efficient ones, an idea visible at least sinc
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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