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 Aquinas's Third Way demonstrates that a deductive argument from contingency to necessary being avoids the regress problem without invoking probabilistic reasoning.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The move from 'contingent things require explanation' to 'the totality requires explanation' commits a composition fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Necessity is a property of propositions (analytic truths), not ontological beings; Aquinas conflates logical with metaphysical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument assumes 'necessary being' is intelligible without demonstrating why God (if that's the conclusion) must be necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Contingent beings require explanation; an infinite regress of contingent causes provides no ultimate explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A necessary being (one that cannot fail to exist) logically terminates regress without invoking probability or brute fact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Deductive form avoids probabilistic reasoning by establishing that contingency entails necessity as a logical requirement.
      ?

      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.