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 is being in general

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Being-in-general is an abstraction, and abstractions lack the personal attributes—intellect, will, love—that theism requires God to possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Edwards's identification collapses the distinction between God and the totality of beings, making his position functionally indistinguishable from Spinozistic pantheism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Classical theism (Aquinas, Scotus) insists God is not a genus or universal but a singular, wholly simple substance—Being Itself, not being-in-general.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If finite beings are absolutely dependent on God as the only true substance, finite beings have no genuine ontological standing, which contradicts creation ex nihilo's affirmation of real creaturely existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting argument's move from 'only true substance' to 'being in general' is a non-sequitur: a unique substance is maximally particular, not maximally general.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Finite beings are absolutely and immediately dependent upon God for both their being and their properties
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.God is the only true substance and the only true cause
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.As the only true substance and cause, God is the head of the entire system of beings
      ?

      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.