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 must have no cause of any kind — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The First must have no cause of any kind

    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.Anything that is 'first' cannot have any kind of cause
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any cause of the First would be prior to it
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If something is prior to the First, the First would not truly be first
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Logical or formal necessity can constitute a non-causal ground for existence without implying temporal or ontological priority over the necessary being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason requires that even a necessary being have a reason for its existence, namely its own essence, which grounds without causing it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A self-explanatory ground differs categorically from an external cause, so the First may have an internal rational ground without violating its primacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plotinus's One is genuinely first yet 'overflows' into existence through a necessary emanative procession, suggesting the First can have an immanent generative principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An immanent generative principle internal to the First's nature does not constitute a cause in the efficient or final sense that would place something prior to the First.
      ?

      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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation2 linked

    Related

    A self-explanatory ground differs categorically from an external cause, so the F...An immanent generative principle internal to the First's nature does not constit...Any cause of the First would be prior to itAnything that is 'first' cannot have any kind of cause
    +4 moreShow less
    If something is prior to the First, the First would not truly be firstLeibniz's principle of sufficient reason requires that even a necessary being ha...Logical or formal necessity can constitute a non-causal ground for existence wit...Plotinus's One is genuinely first yet 'overflows' into existence through a neces...

    Similar

    The First has no cause90%The First Cause has no causes through which it could be known.85%God has no constituting cause.84%The First Being has no material cause.83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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