Talk:Aseity

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Religion / Medieval Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion
	Medieval philosophy

Original Research[edit]

I put the original research banner over the Aseity page because of the last claims regarding aseity of the universe. I am not aware of decay and corruption being widespread throughout the universe, nor am I aware that it is self-evident, nor am I aware how this poses a problem to atheistic aseity of the universe. Since there is no citation or source for this claim, I decided that it falls under the guidelines for original research and put up the banner. 70.243.116.156 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Adam Pierce[reply]

Someone seems to have removed the original-research type comments, so I removed the original research banner.69.137.181.88 09:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Adam Pierce[reply]

Capitalisation[edit]

The capitalisation of "One" and use of, in fact the general choice of words was non-neutral, especially "He is His own existence, ::and nothing can exist without Him."

I have changed the wording to be neutral.

I also forward that it should be included that aseity of a deity can be argued to be logically incoherent:

An entity is defined by its own attributes. In the statement "x determines the properties of x", for the first "x" to successfully ::refer to something, it has to refer to an entity, which already has to have a definite set of properties. Therefore, the notion of ::something being the origin of its own nature (properties) is logically incoherent.

Furthermore, for something to have the property of being necessary, this already requires the existence of laws (at least those of ::logic).

The statement "(P->Q)->((not-P->Q)->Q)" is necessarily true only because of the laws of logic. Without underlying laws, the notion ::of "necessity" is meaningless.

Saying that a deity is the source of logic or that the laws of logic follow from the deity's nature is thus logically circular.

91.65.148.226 (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC) MPhil (in ::support of the above passages, I have studied logic, philosophy of science and philosophy)[reply]

This page is about the article and not the concept. Second your having studied x or y doesn't matter; there are people who have studied these things who don't agree with you. Third there is no contradiction; x or y doesn't need to already exist if the Creator is the one that creates x or y. 2001:BB6:7A77:1058:7983:DDA2:A584:20D4 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Concern...[edit]

There appears to be a fragment / incomplete sentence in the introductory paragraph: "Though many Jewish and Muslim theologians have also believed God to be independent in this way." The phrase appears to be orphaned from any of the phrases around it -- making it difficult to immediately correct it... Sir Ian (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent contradictory statements[edit]

Under the section heading "Meaning", there is a sentence "As a part of this belief God is said to be incapable of changing ..." and yet the following sentence states "Since God was, and is, and is to be the Absolute Perfection, there is no further need to change ...". I suggest that by removing the word "further" from the latter sentence, the apparent contradiction would be removed. Mr D Gill (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The "further" gives the impression that there already was some change, which shouldn't be possible. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]