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 Necessary existence, as a modal property, entails only that a being cannot fail to exist, not any particular intrinsic nature or attributes.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If a being necessarily exists, its intrinsic nature must also be necessary—else what grounds its necessary existence becomes contingent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A necessarily existent being cannot have merely contingent properties; some attributes (like being infinite) seem entailed by necessity itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Separating modal status from intrinsic nature suggests necessary existence is metaphysically 'thin'—but this may empty the concept of meaning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Modality concerns what *could* or *must* be true, not what intrinsic qualities a thing possesses. These are logically distinct categories.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A being could be necessarily existent yet lack omnipotence, omniscience, or other specific attributes—necessity says 'cannot fail to exist.'
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Conflating modal properties with intrinsic nature leads to unfounded assumptions about what necessary existence entails metaphysically.
?
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.