Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If the cosmos is identical to God or Nature (Deus sive Natura), attributing contingency to it conflates modal categories that apply only to finite modes.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Contingency describes possibility of non-existence; this applies to any entity regardless of scale—even infinite wholes could be other.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The cosmos exhibits genuine physical indeterminacy (quantum mechanics); denying this contingency requires empirical refutation, not logic.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Self-causation (causa sui) is conceptually incoherent whether infinite or finite; it doesn't resolve the contingency problem.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Necessity and contingency are relational concepts defined by dependence on external causes; the infinite whole has no external cause.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Spinoza's substance is self-caused (causa sui) and self-determined; these attributes are incompatible with contingency by definition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Applying finite-world modal logic to the infinite totality commits a category mistake, like using 'heavy' to describe numbers.
?
How convincing is this?
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.