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
    God has no constituting cause. — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→In divine science, if 'whether God is' means whether there is a cause through which God is constituted, the answer is necessarily no.

    God has no constituting cause.

    Divine AttributesProof of definition segments
    ?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 AttributesProof of definition segments

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Divine Attributes
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    In divine science, if 'whether God is' means whether there is a cause through wh...The question of whether there is a constituting cause of God is a legitimate que...

    Similar

    The First has no cause89%The First must have no cause of any kind84%God is the only real cause.83%God is the only true cause.82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: al-farabi-metaphysics
    View source passageHide passage
    Fârâbî takes this result as indicating that dialectic and demonstrative science give different meanings, not only to the “what is X?” question and thus to quiddity (dialectic seeking a nominal definition, science a causal definition), but also to the “whether X is” question and thus to existence. So he says that, as in dialectic the two-place investigation “whether X is Y” is only concerned with the copula (not with whether it is essential predication), so in dialectic the one-place investigatio

    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