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
    If x has a part that instantiates F and a part that insta... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    If x has a part that instantiates F and a part that instantiates G, and F and G are incompatible properties, then x is not simple.

    Against an attribute of GodDivine Attributes
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If x has a part that instantiates F and a part that instantiates G, and F and G are incompatible properties, then the parts instantiating F and G are not identical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the parts instantiating F and G are not identical, then x has at least two parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If x has at least two parts, then at least one of those parts is a proper part of x.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A being can instantiate incompatible properties across different relations or respects without those properties inhering in numerically distinct parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Trinity doctrine, as developed by Aquinas in Summa Theologiae I.39, holds that real distinctions of relation are compatible with absolute simplicity of substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If incompatible properties are grounded in relational distinctions rather than mereological ones, P1 of the supporting argument fails to establish numerical distinctness of parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Divine simplicity, as articulated by Augustine and later Plotinus, holds that in God essence and attribute are identical, collapsing the predicate-property distinction that underlies the claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If F and G are not properties inhering in a subject but are identical with the divine essence viewed under different descriptions, then instantiating both F and G entails no mereological commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim's logical force presupposes a hylomorphic or bundle-theoretic ontology of property instantiation that a pure act theorist is under no obligation to accept.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Divine AttributesAgainst an attribute of God

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility3 linked

    Related

    A being can instantiate incompatible properties across different relations or re...Divine simplicity, as articulated by Augustine and later Plotinus, holds that in...If F and G are not properties inhering in a subject but are identical with the d...If incompatible properties are grounded in relational distinctions rather than m...
    +6 moreShow less
    If the parts instantiating F and G are not identical, then x has at least two pa...If x has a part that instantiates F and a part that instantiates G, and F and G ...If x has a proper part, then x is not simple.If x has at least two parts, then at least one of those parts is a proper part o...The Trinity doctrine, as developed by Aquinas in Summa Theologiae I.39, holds th...The claim's logical force presupposes a hylomorphic or bundle-theoretic ontology...

    Similar

    If x has a part that instantiates F and a part that instantiates G, an...95%If the parts instantiating F and G are not identical, then x has at le...87%Two properties are incompatible only if they are logically incompatibl...82%If x has a proper part, then x is not simple.81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: location-mereology
    View source passageHide passage
    The argument is valid and (14) is clearly true. If x has a part that instantiates F and a part that instantiates G, then, provided that these properties are incompatible, the parts in question are not identical. So x has at least two parts. So at least one of them must be a proper part of x, in which case x is not simple.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit