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 the claim relies on the convertibility of being and essence in God, then the distinction between 'being by substance' and 'being by participation' presupposes a categorial framework inapplicable to the divine nature.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Analogy allows categorial frameworks to apply to God non-univocally without requiring God to exemplify creaturely composition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between 'by substance' and 'by participation' describes the creatures' mode of being, not God's internal structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Convertibility of being and essence in God is compatible with using substance language to denote what creatures receive from God's act of being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Aristotelian categories (substance, accident, etc.) derive from analysis of composite beings, making them inapplicable to God's absolute simplicity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If being and essence are identical in God, then distinguishing 'by substance' from 'by participation' imports a real distinction God cannot possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Participatory ontology requires a gap between cause and effect that divine aseity logically precludes.
      ?

      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.