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 The First Being has no potentiality for any predicate it does not already possess by its essence.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Al-Farabi's supporting argument assumes the Aristotelian actuality-potentiality framework, but Duns Scotus argues that God's formal distinctions allow real modal properties without implying real composition or external dependence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God formally contains the ratio of possible worlds or unrealized creative acts, this constitutes a genuine potentiality grounded wholly in the divine essence itself, not in any prior being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim that potentiality always requires an external actualizer conflates ontological dependence with logical possibility, a distinction Scotus's formal distinction is precisely designed to preserve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas distinguishes active potency (power to act) from passive potency (capacity to receive); the First Being may possess infinite active potency without passive potency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being with unlimited active power possesses real potentiality that is not a deficiency, undermining the assumption that all potentiality implies dependence on an external actualizer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If the First Being were potentially F, it would depend on something else that is actually F to make it actually F.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.That actually-F thing would be prior to the First Being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nothing can be prior to the First Being.
      ?

      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.