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 Son exists of necessity, his existence cannot be contingent on any causal act, even one performed necessarily by the Father.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Relations between necessary beings can still be causal without making the effect contingent (e.g., logical entailment).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A necessary causal act by the Father could produce a necessary effect; necessity of cause doesn't preclude necessity of effect.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Distinguishing Son's necessity from causation confuses metaphysical status with origin, leaving their relation unexplained.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Necessity and causation are metaphysically distinct: necessary beings don't require causal production to exist.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the Son's existence were caused, it would depend on the Father's decision or action, making it contingent on that act.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Classical theism holds that necessary beings exist in all possible worlds; contingent causation would violate this.
?
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.