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 second principle of the impossibility of an actual in... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The second principle of the impossibility of an actual infinite regress was not central to Avicenna's cosmological argument for God's existence

    CausationNatural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Avicenna's argument in the Shifa proceeds by dividing existents into necessary and contingent, requiring no infinite regress prohibition to establish a Necessary Existent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The modal distinction between wajib al-wujud and mumkin al-wujud is logically prior to and independent of any temporal or causal series considerations in Avicenna's framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Avicenna explicitly accepts infinite causal chains of contingent beings in his cosmology, which would be incoherent if infinite regress prohibition were central to his argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Davidson (1987) in 'Proofs for Eternity' shows Avicenna's argument terminates in a synchronic dependence relation, not a diachronic regress requiring an anti-infinite-regress principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A synchronic modal argument from contingency to necessity requires only that the aggregate of contingents lacks self-sufficient existence, not that an infinite series is impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • Mayer (2001) demonstrated that this principle was not central to Avicenna's cosmological/ontological argument
      ?

      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

    Natural TheologyCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    All sources support it1 linked

    Related

    A synchronic modal argument from contingency to necessity requires only that the...Avicenna explicitly accepts infinite causal chains of contingent beings in his c...Avicenna's argument in the Shifa proceeds by dividing existents into necessary a...Davidson (1987) in 'Proofs for Eternity' shows Avicenna's argument terminates in...
    +2 moreShow less
    Mayer (2001) demonstrated that this principle was not central to Avicenna's cosm...The modal distinction between wajib al-wujud and mumkin al-wujud is logically pr...

    Similar

    The force of the cosmological argument from regress does not depend on...81%Mayer (2001) demonstrated that this principle was not central to Avice...79%The three types of cosmological arguments differ in their approach to ...78%The conclusion of all versions of the cosmological argument invokes an...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: suhrawardi
    View source passageHide passage
    Suhrawardi adopts a familiar ‘pyramidal structure of levels of light being’, from the Light of lights to the sublunary world. He appeals to two (Peripatetic) principles to uphold the existence of a first necessary cause — the Light of Lights — and all the basic classes of beings (light and darkness, substance and state, independent and dependent beings). A first principle, Walbridge notes, “is a form of the principle of sufficient reason, ‘the principle of the most noble contingency’ […] which a
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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