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 Divine providence cannot be the source from which providence derives purely accidentally
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Epicurus and Lucretius argue that divine perfection entails complete self-sufficiency, making any providential relation to the world a deficiency in divine nature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God's perfection requires total independence from contingent beings, then providence—even essential providence—compromises divine aseity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Plotinus holds that the One's causal emanation is neither deliberate nor accidental but necessary overflow, collapsing the accidental/essential distinction applied to the First Principle.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the accidental/essential dichotomy does not cleanly apply to the First Principle, ruling out 'purely accidental' providence does not establish essential providence as the remaining alternative.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
An accidental relationship between God and providence is unsuitable for the First Principle
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Both a purely causal and a purely accidental relationship with the inferior world are ruled out for the First Principle
?
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.