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 An uncaused Necessary Being exists whose essence suffices for its existence

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between 'necessary' and 'contingent' existence is a linguistic or logical distinction, not a distinction tracking metaphysical kinds of beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being whose essence 'suffices for' its existence merely relocates the explanatory demand rather than satisfying it, since the essence itself requires explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hume's point stands: whatever we can conceive as existing we can equally conceive as not existing, so necessity cannot be a real property of existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The impossibility of an actual infinite regress of causes is not self-evident and has been coherently denied by thinkers from Aristotle's eternal cosmos to contemporary infinitist metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an infinite causal series is possible, the series as a whole may be self-explanatory without requiring an external uncaused terminus, as Russell argued against Copleston in 1948.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Contingent (possible) existents derive their existence from a cause
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An infinite regress of causes is impossible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the series of contingent beings must terminate in an uncaused being
      ?

      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.