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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A cause and its effect must be really distinct, since the same entity cannot simultaneously be both the ground of itself and the ground of another without a real relational difference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the First's essence just is its causal power, then the First is essentially relative to creatures, making divine simplicity dependent on the existence of a contingent world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Aquinas's real distinction between esse and essentia in creatures presupposes a corresponding real distinction in God between what God is and what God does, contra al-Farabi's identity thesis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Duns Scotus argued that formal distinctions obtain within a simple being, meaning causal and essential attributes can be formally distinct without introducing composition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no formal distinction separates the First's essence from its causal activity, then the First's causal relations to radically different effects are inexplicable by appeal to essence alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The First is not divided into two things such that one part substantiates its essence and another part causes other things to arise from it
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The First does not require anything other than its essence — no accident, motion, external instrument, or material substrate — to produce an effect
      ?

      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.