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 There is only one substance, which is both God and Nature

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's principle of the identity of indiscernibles entails that genuine substances must be individuated by intrinsic properties, requiring plurality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God and Nature share all intrinsic properties by identity, the concept of substance collapses into an undifferentiated unity that cannot ground causal explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Causal explanation requires ontologically distinct relata, so a monist substance cannot account for the apparent causal structure of modes without vicious circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's Critique establishes that 'necessary existence' is not a coherent predicate applicable to any empirically unconditioned totality like 'the universe as a whole.'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the ontological argument fails as Kant argues—existence not being a real predicate—the self-subsistence of a single all-encompassing substance cannot be demonstrated a priori.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The existence of a single substance is demonstrated by a version of the ontological argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.That which exists necessarily and is self-subsistent qualifies as substance in the fullest sense
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Only the universe as a whole meets the criteria of being wholly necessary and self-subsistent
      ?

      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.