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 Necessary Existent can be identified with the deity — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Necessary Existent can be identified with the deity

    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.Necessary existence entails oneness, simplicity, and goodness
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These attributes are the defining attributes of the deity
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Necessary existence, as established by Avicenna's modal ontology, entails only logical indispensability, not intentionality, will, or providential care.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The deity of Abrahamic theology is essentially characterized by intentional agency, which cannot be derived from metaphysical necessity alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the Necessary Existent satisfies only a subset of the deity's defining attributes, making identification a category error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's critique in the Critique of Pure Reason demonstrates that 'necessary existence' is a logical predicate that cannot ground determinate theological attributes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Oneness and simplicity entailed by necessary existence are purely formal properties that are equally compatible with an impersonal absolute, as in Spinoza's Deus sive Natura.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Formal attribute-sharing is insufficient for numerical identity when the underlying conceptions of the referents differ essentially in kind.
      ?

      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

    Related

    Formal attribute-sharing is insufficient for numerical identity when the underly...Kant's critique in the Critique of Pure Reason demonstrates that 'necessary exis...Necessary existence entails oneness, simplicity, and goodnessNecessary existence, as established by Avicenna's modal ontology, entails only l...
    +4 moreShow less
    Oneness and simplicity entailed by necessary existence are purely formal propert...The deity of Abrahamic theology is essentially characterized by intentional agen...Therefore, the Necessary Existent satisfies only a subset of the deity's definin...These attributes are the defining attributes of the deity

    Similar

    God as the whole universe tending towards deity does exist, even if Go...80%Philosophers hold no unanimous answer to whether the Prime Mover is id...78%The universe's potential to attain deity must therefore be grounded in...76%These attributes are the defining attributes of the deity75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: albalag
    View source passageHide passage
    Avicenna divides “actual” beings, as opposed to impossible things, into necessary in itself and possible in itself but necessary through another (Davidson 1987: 292–3; McGinnis 2010: 159–164). The necessary in itself is that which has existence in its essence and an impossibility arises whenever it is assumed not to exist. By contrast, the possible in itself but necessary through another is that which “has no existence in essence” and “no impossibility” arises whether it is assumed to exist or n
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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