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
    It may not be possible to conceptualize a simple God by a... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It may not be possible to conceptualize a simple God by assigning him to a familiar category.

    Divine 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.The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) implies that God is utterly sui generis and unique in his very mode of uniqueness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.To conceptualize a simple God, we must assign him to some familiar category.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.It is unclear how assigning God to a familiar category is possible if God is utterly sui generis and unique in his very mode of uniqueness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas's analogical predication allows concepts to apply to God neither univocally nor equivocally, but proportionally, bypassing strict categorical membership.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A term like 'good' can meaningfully apply to God via analogy of attribution without requiring God to fall under the same genus as finite goods.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, conceptualization through analogical language is coherent even for a being that transcends all familiar categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Negative theology (apophasis), developed by Pseudo-Dionysius and Maimonides, holds that God is conceptualized precisely by systematically negating finite predicates, not by categorial inclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The via negativa produces genuine cognitive content about God's nature—ruling out composition, change, and limitation—without assigning God to any familiar category.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A conceptual practice grounded in systematic negation constitutes a coherent form of conceptualization even for a radically sui generis being.
      ?

      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 Attributes

    Related

    A conceptual practice grounded in systematic negation constitutes a coherent for...A term like 'good' can meaningfully apply to God via analogy of attribution with...Aquinas's analogical predication allows concepts to apply to God neither univoca...It is unclear how assigning God to a familiar category is possible if God is utt...
    +5 moreShow less
    Negative theology (apophasis), developed by Pseudo-Dionysius and Maimonides, hol...The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) implies that God is utterly sui generis ...The via negativa produces genuine cognitive content about God's nature—ruling ou...Therefore, conceptualization through analogical language is coherent even for a ...To conceptualize a simple God, we must assign him to some familiar category.

    Similar

    To conceptualize a simple God, we must assign him to some familiar cat...93%It is unclear how assigning God to a familiar category is possible if ...86%If picking out a single individual were sufficient to disqualify a rep...74%God, for Fârâbî, does not fall under any Aristotelian category.73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: divine-simplicity
    View source passageHide passage
    To conceptualize a simple God it seems we must assign him to some familiar category or other. But how is this possible if, as DDS implies, God is utterly sui generis and unique in his very mode of uniqueness? It might not be possible at all, in which case silence might be the most appropriate response. But let’s not give up just yet. Vallicella (1992) suggests that God is assimilable to a self-exemplifying property, a Platonic Form. Hughes goes nominalist with his idea that God is something like a singleton set. Mann assimilates God to a property instance or trope. Hugh McCann, rejecting Mann’...

    Details

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