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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that God cannot be a member of any extant ontological category.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas's doctrine of analogical predication allows God to instantiate categories like 'substance' or 'being' in an eminent, non-univocal mode without reduction to creaturely membership.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If analogical participation suffices for genuine ontological categorization, then transcendence of creaturely modes does not entail transcendence of categories themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument illicitly conflates being a member of a category in the creaturely sense with being categorizable at all, which Scotus identified as the equivocation underlying radical apophatic theology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Duns Scotus argued that 'being' is univocally predicable of God and creatures, making God a member of the broadest ontological category without compromising divine infinity or aseity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If univocity of being is coherent, then the inference from absolute sovereignty to absolute categorical transcendence fails, since creating the instances of a category does not require standing outside the category entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sovereignty over X does not logically entail non-membership in X, as Leibniz's creator God remains a substance while being the ground of all other substances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If God is absolutely sovereign, then God must be the creative source of the ontological categories themselves, not merely the source of the natures of the members of categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Being the creative source of all ontological categories means God must transcend all categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Absolute sovereignty implies absolute transcendence and absolute ineffability.
      ?

      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.