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. 22.214.171.124 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Adam Pierce
Someone seems to have removed the original-research type comments, so I removed the original research banner.126.96.36.199 09:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Adam Pierce
- 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.
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)