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
    Pain is a real property, not a mere absence. — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→God must exemplify pain.

    Pain is a real property, not a mere absence.

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology

    Connections

    1 topic

    Against an attribute of God1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Divine Attributes
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    God is the ground of all reality.God must exemplify pain.The ground of all reality must exemplify every real property.

    Similar

    A God-property is a property that is possessed by God in all and only ...80%Therefore the First Being cannot be deprived of any property.78%No person is a property instance—not God, not me, not Socrates.75%Evil is a privation — an absence of what ought to be present74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil-kinds-origins
    View source passageHide passage
    Although such pain is a “perfection” and thus a real property, for Leibniz, it still involves a kind of weakness or imperfection in the person who has it, and so God cannot, in the end, exemplify this “perfection”. Rather, God’s possession of maximal pleasure is somehow sufficient to ground the “reality” that is found in both pleasure and pain (Leibniz 1677 [1969: 177]). This seems fishy, and other philosophers argue against Leibniz that if pain is a real property (rather than a mere absence), t

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective