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
    Substance must possess infinite attributes. — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Substance must possess infinite attributes.

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology
    ?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.Substance is pure, utterly unlimited being (derived from a variation of the ontological argument).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Because substance is unlimited, substance must possess unlimited attributes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Because substance is unlimited, substance must possess all attributes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Infinity of being does not entail infinity of attributes; a being can be unlimited in existence while determinate in its modes of expression.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aquinas's God is unlimited in esse yet possesses attributes only analogically, not as an infinite enumerable set of discrete properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The inference from 'unlimited' to 'possessing all attributes' equivocates between quantitative infinity and qualitative completeness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's critique of the ontological argument shows that existence and perfection-predicates cannot be derived from mere conceptual analysis of unlimited being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'unlimited' cannot analytically ground existence, it equally cannot ground the possession of infinite determinate attributes, which are synthetic claims about substance's nature.
      ?

      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 AttributesNatural Theology

    Related

    Aquinas's God is unlimited in esse yet possesses attributes only analogically, n...Because substance is unlimited, substance must possess all attributes.Because substance is unlimited, substance must possess unlimited attributes.If 'unlimited' cannot analytically ground existence, it equally cannot ground th...
    +4 moreShow less
    Infinity of being does not entail infinity of attributes; a being can be unlimit...Kant's critique of the ontological argument shows that existence and perfection-...Substance is pure, utterly unlimited being (derived from a variation of the onto...The inference from 'unlimited' to 'possessing all attributes' equivocates betwee...

    Similar

    Substance is characterized by infinite attributes.94%Knowledge through attributes is the kind of knowledge the infinite int...84%In God these properties are infinite.83%We cannot attribute infinite qualities to God based on observation of ...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: continental-rationalism
    View source passageHide passage
    Spinoza arrived at this position by way of a decidedly uncartesian account of attributes. While Descartes held that two substances of the same type can share the same principal attribute, Spinoza rejected this. Any two substances, argued Spinoza, must be distinguished either by their attributes (Spinoza dropped the modifier “principal”) or by their modes. But, since modes are themselves both ontologically and causally dependent on the substances of which they are affections, they cannot be the i
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

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