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 Hasker's theory is problematic because the divine nature/soul, which is not God, would be the ultimate reality rather than God.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.On Hasker's theory, the soul (a.k.a. the divine nature) is the source of the Persons and so of God (the Trinity).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2."God is the ultimate reality" seems to be true by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the divine nature/soul is the source of God but is not itself God, then something other than God would be the ultimate reality, contradicting the definitional truth that God is the ultimate reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.In classical theism (Aquinas, ST Ia q.3), ultimate reality requires aseity: existing through nothing prior to itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hasker's divine soul, as the ontological source from which the Persons derive, possesses a prior explanatory ground for God's existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any entity with a prior explanatory ground fails the aseity condition and therefore cannot itself be the ultimate reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotelian metaphysics distinguishes the primary substance (the concrete individual) from the secondary substance (the universal nature), treating the individual as ontologically basic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On Hasker's emergent model, the divine nature functions as a secondary-substance-like universal that precedes and generates the primary divine individuals (the Persons).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A secondary-substance analog that generates primary substances occupies a higher ontological tier, making it, not those substances, the ultimate reality.
      ?

      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.