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 must be both Being (esse) and a being (id quod est).

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Boethius's distinction in De Hebdomadibus between esse and id quod est applies to creatures, not to God, who transcends categorical predication entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Applying the esse/id quod est distinction to God illegitimately imports a creaturely logical grammar into divine ontology, generating a false dilemma.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pseudo-Dionysius and the apophatic tradition hold that God surpasses both Being and beings, making the conjunction of both terms a category error rather than a solution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Heidegger's critique of onto-theology argues that identifying God with Being itself conflates the ground of beings with a supreme being, collapsing theology into metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God is genuinely identical with esse subsistens as Aquinas claims, then the requirement that God also be 'a being' reintroduces the very composition divine simplicity was invoked to eliminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If God were Being but not a being, he could not enter into causal relations, could not create the world, intervene in its operations, or interact with human persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Such a God would be 'religiously pernicious'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If Being is other than every being, then Being is not — one could not sensibly maintain that God exists.
      ?

      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.