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 composite but must be absolutely simple.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A being can be ontologically ultimate while possessing real internal distinctions, as Scotus argued with formal distinctions in God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Formal distinctions are less than real distinctions and do not require an external cause, undermining P2's scope.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If formal distinctions suffice for divine attributes like justice and mercy, absolute simplicity is neither necessary nor coherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A composite being requires an external cause only if its components are contingently unified, not if unity is intrinsic to its nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting argument illicitly equates all composition with contingent dependence, conflating metaphysical and causal necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.God is the being by substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A composite or non-simple being must have an external cause and therefore be a being by participation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A being by substance is not a being by participation.
      ?

      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.