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 is the only pure one — a one that is not also many — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    God is the only pure one — a one that is not also many

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.To avoid infinite regress, the source of unity extrinsic to accidental ones must itself be purely one and not also many
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any thing other than God that is called 'one' is many as well as one
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is numerically one substance yet genuinely three distinct persons, making divine unity irreducibly complex.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a coherent monotheistic tradition can maintain that the divine nature is both one and internally differentiated, then pure undifferentiated unity is not a necessary condition for being God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Al-Farabi's argument assumes Neoplatonic simplicity as the only model of divinity, but this begs the question against traditions where relational complexity is internal to the divine nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Spinoza's substance monism holds that God or Nature is the one infinite substance, yet this substance necessarily expresses itself through infinitely many attributes and modes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the infinite richness of attributes is not accidental but essential to what it means to be the one ultimate reality, then being-one and being-many are not mutually exclusive at the divine level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Al-Farabi's regress argument assumes that unity and multiplicity are always externally related, but internal self-differentiation within a single being dissolves the regress without requiring bare simplicity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology

    Connections

    1 topic

    Proof of definition segments1 linked

    Related

    Al-Farabi's argument assumes Neoplatonic simplicity as the only model of divinit...Al-Farabi's regress argument assumes that unity and multiplicity are always exte...Any thing other than God that is called 'one' is many as well as oneIf a coherent monotheistic tradition can maintain that the divine nature is both...
    +4 moreShow less
    If the infinite richness of attributes is not accidental but essential to what i...Spinoza's substance monism holds that God or Nature is the one infinite substanc...The Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is numerically one substanc...To avoid infinite regress, the source of unity extrinsic to accidental ones must...

    Similar

    God is the only pure one93%Any one depends on a pure one79%For something to be truly one is for it not to be many in any way78%God is absolutely one (both unique and simple/uncomposed)76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: al-farabi-metaphysics
    View source passageHide passage
    Main themes of the treatise include distinguishing a whole family of senses of “one” (in a few cases Fârâbî also gives the corresponding senses of the abstract “unity”), but also and especially distinguishing different ways that senses of “one” are related to senses of “many”. The treatise can read like a dry catalogue, and Fârâbî rarely gives arguments or admits that his claims might be controversial, but it is often clear that he has an opponent in mind. That opponent might be a type rather th
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit