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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Simplicity does not entail infinity

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Finitude is not the result of composition (matter limiting form)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An entity is finite or infinite by reason of its own intrinsic degree of perfection, not by something accidental to itself
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas's God is absolutely simple yet debates about divine infinity were historically separate and required additional arguments beyond simplicity alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If simplicity entailed infinity, the Neoplatonic One—maximally simple, beyond all composition—would be straightforwardly infinite, yet Plotinus treats the One's infinity as a distinct, separately argued property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A property entailed by another requires no independent demonstration, but medieval theologians like Scotus himself offered separate proofs for infinity, showing simplicity was not considered sufficient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A simple entity can have a determinate, bounded essence without any internal complexity, as abstract mathematical objects like a single point are without parts yet not infinite.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scotus's own haecceity doctrine establishes that intrinsic individuation is compatible with simplicity, and individuated entities are paradigmatically finite, showing simplicity permits finitude.
      ?

      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.