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 A necessary and eternal divine mind is not required to ground necessary truths

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.All necessary truths are analytic
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Analytic truths are grounded solely in the structure of language or conceptual schemes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The structure of language or conceptual schemes does not require the existence of a divine mind
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Necessary truths like mathematical facts obtain in all possible worlds by virtue of the logical structure of possibility itself, not any mind's activity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quine and Putnam's indispensability arguments ground mathematical necessity in structural features of reality that are ontologically prior to any conceiving subject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A divine mind would itself require grounding in necessary truths (e.g., logical laws governing its own coherence), making God explanatorily posterior, not prior, to necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Platonist accounts (Frege, Gödel) hold that abstract objects and their relations subsist independently of any mind, human or divine, as non-causal features of reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If abstract objects are causally inert and mind-independent, positing a divine mind adds no explanatory work to their necessity and violates Occam's razor.
      ?

      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.