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
    The First does not require an accident or motion in itsel... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The First's essence is identical with that by which the First causes the existence of other things

    The First does not require an accident or motion in itself in order for something else to arise from it

    Divine AttributesProof of definition segments
    ?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 AttributesProof of definition segments

    Related

    The First does not require anything other than its essence — no accident, motion...The First is not divided into two things such that one part substantiates its es...The First's essence is identical with that by which the First causes the existen...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Divine Attributes
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    A thing does not exist through an accident of existence (wujûd) in the...79%The First does not require anything other than its essence — no accide...79%Le Grand holds that there are no accidents.78%Aristotle's argument from motion establishes only that there exists a ...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: al-farabi-metaphysics
    View source passageHide passage
    but he gives no argument that the First’s existence entails the existence of other things. Rather, he seems to rely on the argument that since other things in fact exist, their existence must ultimately be caused by the First; his main concern is not to show that the First causes the existence of other things, but to show how it causes the existence of other things, and in particular to show that that by which the First causes the existence of other things is identical with its essence, just as

    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