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 We can conclude that God has all perfections without prefixing 'According to the idea of God' to the premise that God's nature contains all perfections

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from 'X's nature contains P' to 'X has P' is valid only if X's existence is already established independently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descartes' own distinction between essence and existence (Meditations V) undermines deriving actual perfections from conceptual natures alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A true and immutable nature entails only hypothetical necessity: IF God exists, THEN God has perfections—not categorical attribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's critique establishes that 'existence' and its entailments are not predicates extractable from conceptual analysis of a subject's nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Attributing all perfections to God without the epistemic prefix smuggles existence into the analysis of essence, violating the analytic/synthetic distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.God's nature is a true and immutable nature (TIN)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.True and immutable natures exist in some way, independently of concrete or empirical reality
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.We can clearly and distinctly perceive that God's nature is a TIN
      ?

      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.