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
    From this it follows that for each x there is the rich pr... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The move from (a) to (b) in Mann's argument is a non sequitur absent some auxiliary premise.

    From this it follows that for each x there is the rich property instance, the R-ness of x.

    Divine Attributes
    ?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 Attributes

    Related

    But everything instantiating properties (being an instance of properties) is not...For each concrete individual x there is a corresponding rich property R, and the...Socrates instantiates a rich property, and so is an instance of a property, but ...The move from (a) to (b) in Mann's argument is a non sequitur absent some auxili...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Divine Attributes
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    For every concrete individual x, x is a property instance of some rich...80%For each concrete individual x there is a corresponding rich property ...80%Socrates instantiates a rich property, and so is an instance of a prop...79%Essential property instances of God are not more dependent on God than...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: divine-simplicity
    View source passageHide passage
    We have already seen how, if we embrace a constituent approach to ontology, the divine nature can be coherently conceived as identical to God. Being immaterial, there is nothing in God to distinguish him from his nature. So he is identical to his nature. The divine nature is, or can be thought of as, a property. So there is at least one property that is self-instantiating: it has itself as its sole instance, and indeed as its sole possible instance. If this is coherently conceivable, then the same will be true of perfect knowledge, perfect power, and so on: if instantiated, these attributes ar...

    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