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 lacks no perfection worthy of the name. — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Divinity as a perfect being is entirely beyond having desires and aims.

    God lacks no perfection worthy of the name.

    Divine Attributes
    ?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 Attributes

    Connections

    2 topics

    Against an attribute of God2 linkedAgainst an aspect of God1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Divine Attributes
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Related

    Desires and aims arise only when a perfection is lacking and sought.Divinity as a perfect being is entirely beyond having desires and aims.Therefore God has nothing to desire or aim at.

    Similar

    The First Being has no potentiality for any perfection not had by its ...80%Existence is not a further quality or perfection which a being possess...77%God is the most perfect being, possessing all perfections75%God's TIN contains all perfections75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: halevi
    View source passageHide passage
    The philosopher opens his presentation with a sharply negative appraisal of the presuppositions underlying the king's dream and offers a brief critical analysis to explain why he rejects each one. Specifically, he denies that God is the kind of being who is either pleased or displeased about anything, has knowledge of particular persons, actions, or events, or even can be regarded as the “Creator” of human beings, unless one understands this in purely metaphorical terms. What warrants these conf

    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