Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Metaphysical ultimacy requires necessary existence and aseity, which contingent occasions of love, being temporally bounded events, cannot possess.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Ultimacy might not require necessary existence—only that something is foundational within its domain or framework of explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Love's metaphysical significance could derive from participating in eternal or ultimate realities, not from its own temporal boundedness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aseity may be incoherent or impossible even for God; dependence on self-constitution or logical laws suggests ultimacy doesn't require it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Metaphysical ultimacy requires independence from external causation; temporal events depend on prior causes, so cannot be ultimate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Necessary existence means existing in all possible worlds; contingent events exist only in some worlds, failing this requirement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aseity (self-sufficiency) demands no dependence on anything external; bounded temporal occasions require external temporal conditions.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42