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 If God exists, then there is a very tight connection between the divine nature and the divine existence.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas's own doctrine of divine simplicity entails God's essence just is existence (esse), yet this applies to a being whose existence we cannot derive a priori.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A tight essence-existence connection is compatible with God's existence remaining epistemically and metaphysically contingent from the creature's perspective, as Scotus argued.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The necessity of a being's existence does not follow from the identity of its essence with existence unless one already presupposes the ontological argument's validity, which Kant decisively challenged.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne argues that God is a person with essential properties, making divine existence logically contingent on whether such a person-kind could fail to be instantiated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If existence is not a first-order predicate (Frege-Russell thesis), then identifying divine nature with divine existence is a category error that undermines the claim's coherence entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • A divine being cannot possess contingent modal status: if God exists, then he is necessary, and if he does not exist, then he is impossible.
      ?

      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.