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 universe is already implicitly God in an actual sense, even though deity as a fully realized quality does not yet exist.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Actuality and potentiality are categorically distinct: a tendency toward X does not constitute implicit possession of X in any meaningful sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Calling the universe 'implicitly God' conflates the logical ground of a disposition with the realized property the disposition aims at, committing a modal fallacy Aristotle's Categories explicitly warns against.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If mere tendency toward deity sufficed for implicit deity, then acorns would be implicitly forests, dissolving the distinction between kinds that grounds all predication.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Classical theism, from Aquinas through Leibniz, holds that divine predicates require pure actuality (actus purus) with no admixture of unrealized potentiality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being that does not yet fully possess its defining attribute cannot bear that attribute even implicitly, since God's essence on any orthodox account is identical with God's existence and perfection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Samuel Clarke's cosmological argument establishes that a necessarily existent being cannot have contingent or temporally indexed properties, making 'not yet' incompatible with genuine divinity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All potentiality must be grounded in some actuality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The universe's potential to attain deity must therefore be grounded in an actual tendency toward deity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.God as the whole universe tending towards deity does exist, even if God as actually possessing deity does not yet exist.
      ?

      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.