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 has no cause — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The First is simple, i.e., has no internal composition

    The First has no cause

    Divine Attributes
    ?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 AttributesCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 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.
    Anything with internal composition (e.g., matter and form, genus and differentia...
    The First cannot depend on anything prior to itself
    The First is simple, i.e., has no internal composition

    Similar

    The First must have no cause of any kind90%God has no constituting cause.89%The First Being has no material cause.89%The First Cause has no causes through which it could be known.88%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: al-farabi-metaphysics
    View source passageHide passage
    Fârâbî’s general strategy is (1) to argue that anything that is “first” must not have any kind of cause, since any such cause would be prior to it and it would not be first, and that it has no privation or potentiality (either of which would imply dependence on something prior); then (2) to infer that since it has no cause it must be simple, i.e., that it is “one” in the sense of not having any of the different kinds of internal composition (e.g., out of matter and form, genus and differentia, o

    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